JUDGMENT : K.M. JOSEPH, J. 1. Appellant is the writ petitioner. The second respondent-Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation issued a notice inviting tender for carrying out the work of supply, establishment, maintenance and operation of Electronic Weighing Bridges at various gates of River Gaula in District Nainital. It appears that the appellant/writ petitioner was not found technically qualified. The writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 2. It appears that Clause 11 Part 4 of the condition provided that a bidder should have three years’ experience of operation/maintenance of Electronic Weighing Bridges for which attested copy of Registration Certificate with Weights and Measures Department should be enclosed. The case of the appellant/writ petitioner appears to have been that it had submitted the technical bid supported by all the necessary documents including Experience Certificate and Registration Certificate. The stand taken by the Corporation, however, was that the Registration Certificate was in the name of M/s Haldwani Dharmakanta and Uttarakhand Stone Products, which is not in terms of the condition. The Experience Certificate was in the name of another person, namely, Mahesh Chandra Sharma. The learned Single Judge did not find merit, particularly, taking note of the fact that Cooperative Society is a body with distinct legal personality and, therefore, the experience earned by a member of the society cannot be treated as the experience of the Society. The learned Single Judge also did not find merit in the case of discrimination, which was sought to be established without the help of the pleadings. The writ petition was dismissed. 3. We heard Mr. M.C. Kanpdal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Mangal Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 4. Mr. M.C. Kandpal, learned senior counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, on the other hand, would submit that the Registration Certificate and Experience Certificate have been made available and they have been furnished by the persons, who are members of the Appellant-Society. It is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that, in fact, there were 32 members besides 11 primary societies, which are members of the Society. He would submit that the appellant/writ petitioner is a Cooperative Society; it can do the work only through its Members. It is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that, in fact, there were 32 members besides 11 primary societies, which are members of the Society. He would submit that the appellant/writ petitioner is a Cooperative Society; it can do the work only through its Members. One of its members has the requisite experience; it has produced the certificate to prove that the required experience is there. As far as the Registration Certificate is also concerned, it is submitted that it is in the name of one of its Members and the appellant/writ petitioner can carry out the work. 5. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3/Corporation would submit that actually apart from this, there is another obstacle, namely, the appellant/writ petitioner has not produced the EPF/ESI certificate, and he sought to establish it by way of the pleading of the appellant/writ petitioner, wherein he says that if it is given the contract, it will get the registration. 6. Even without relying on the said aspect, we would think that the appellant/writ petitioner must fail on the basis of the reasoning and findings of the learned Single Judge. We agree with the learned Single Judge that the Experience Certificate produced from a Member of the Society cannot be treated as the Certificate of the appellant/writ petitioner. The Registration Certificate is also not the Certificate produced by the appellant/writ petitioner, who is the actual tenderer. We agree with the learned Single Judge also that the appellant/writ petitioner is a body corporate having separate legal existence in law and when the certificates are to be produced by the tenderer, it must be the certificates or other certificates showing the experience of the appellant/writ petitioner in its own right. In the absence of the same, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. 7. The appeal, also being without merit, fails and is dismissed. No order as to cost.