G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THESE intra-Court appeals have been preferred by the Food Corporation of India (in short the 'corporation' ). The dispute relates to grant of contract for handling, storing and transporting of food grains from Railway heads to different godowns of the Corporation situated in the State of Karnataka (hereinafter called the 'handling contracts' ). ( 2 ) THE core question is whether it is competent on the part of the corporation to change its earlier policy decisions dated 19-1-1989 and 16-3-1989 of giving the handling contracts only to the Labour Co-operative societies by a new policy decision adopted on 19-10-1996 of inviting tenders from the open market for grant of such contracts. ( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge has held that in view of the Divisior bench judgments in the cases of Karnataka Contract Labour ana transport Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore and Others v Fooa corporation of India, Madras and Others\ which was subsequently followed in by another Division Bench in W. A. No. 5910 of 1997 (DD: 31-10-1997), it is impermissible for the Corporation to change its policy to the above effect. ( 4 ) THE Corporation has been established under Section 3 of the Food corporation of India Act, 1964 (in short the 'act' ). According to the preamble of the Act, it has been so established for the purpose of trading in food grains and other foodstuffs and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. The statement of objects and reasons inter alia provide that this establishment was necessitated in the interest of increased agricultural production as well as in the interest of consumers for the purpose of undertaking trade in food grains in commercial manner. ( 5 ) SECTION 13 of the Act deals with the functions of the Corporation by providing that subject to other provisions of the Act, it is the primary duty of the Corporation to undertake the purchase, storage, movement, transport, distribution and sale of food grains and other foodstuffs. ( 6 ) FOR discharging the above functions, the Corporation has set up 21 godowns/depots in the State of Karnataka. According to the statement furnished by the learned Counsel for the appellant, these godowns are situated at K. G. F. , Hubli, Mysore, Maddur, Bellary, Gangavathi, raichur, Shimoga, Hassan and Udupi. ( 6 ) FOR discharging the above functions, the Corporation has set up 21 godowns/depots in the State of Karnataka. According to the statement furnished by the learned Counsel for the appellant, these godowns are situated at K. G. F. , Hubli, Mysore, Maddur, Bellary, Gangavathi, raichur, Shimoga, Hassan and Udupi. ( 7 ) FOR handling of food grains, the Corporation used to employdifferent methods at different places. The system of employing labour by the corporation for the above purpose was noticed by the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of the Food Corporation of India v M/s. Food corporation of India. In paragraph 17, of the judgment, the Supreme court has held that. "from the perusal of the scheme of the Act, it is undeniable that the Food Corporation of India is an instrumentality of the State comprehended in the expression 'other authorities' in Article 12 of the Constitution and is subject, amongst other things, to Part III of the Constitution. If so, it must act fairly so as not to violate article 14 of the Constitution". ( 8 ) IN para 18 of the judgment referred to above, the Supreme Court noticed that "though it was open to the Corporation to engage a contractor for handling of food grains may be true or legally acceptable" but farther observed that "it should not remain oblivious to the trend which is in favour of abolishing the contract labour". ( 9 ) IN the case of Sankar Mukherjee and Others v Union of India and others, the Supreme Court while dealing with the practice of employing labour through contractors even in public sector undertakings made the following observations. "it is surprising that more than forty years after the independence the practice of employing labour through contractors by big companies including public sector companies is still being accepted as a normal feature of labour employment. There is no security of service to the workmen and their wages are far below than that of the regular workmen of the company. This court in Standard-Vacuum Refining Company of India Limited v their Workmen and Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway v union of India, has disapproved the system of contract labour holding it to be 'archaic', 'primitive' and of 'baneful nature'. The system, which is nothing but an improved version of bonded labour, is sought to be abolished by the Act. This court in Standard-Vacuum Refining Company of India Limited v their Workmen and Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway v union of India, has disapproved the system of contract labour holding it to be 'archaic', 'primitive' and of 'baneful nature'. The system, which is nothing but an improved version of bonded labour, is sought to be abolished by the Act. The Act is an important piece of social legislation for the welfare of labourers and has to be liberally construed". ( 10 ) SUBSEQUENT to the aforesaid judgments, the Central Government, pursuant to powers under Section 10 (1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 issued notification in No. 833 (B), dated 1-11-1990 prohibiting employment of contract labour in the godowns and depots of the Corporation as specified in the Schedule annexed thereto. ( 11 ) SO far as the State of Karnataka is concerned, this provision was made applicable to only five godowns/depots which were situated at K. R. Pura, Bangalore, White Field, KR. Nagar, Bommapur (Hubli ). So for as other godowns are concerned, the Central Government did not find it proper to prohibit employment of contract labour in such godowns. ( 12 ) BUT, even earlier to the issuance of the above referred statutory notification, the Board of Directors of the Corporation took a policy decision in 1989 to entrust the work of handling etc. , of food grains to the labour Co-operative Societies formed by labourers, who had been employed by the erstwhile contractors, by entering into contract with them. Policy decisions were also taken to give various concessions and benefits to such Labour Co-operative Society. The material policy decisions in this regard were contained in circulars dated 19-1-1989 (first circular) and 16-3-1989 (second circular ). ( 13 ) THE first circular dated 19-1-1989 reads as under. "the Department of Food has desired that Contract Labour System in FCI, depots may be replaced by forming Labour Co-operative societies and entrusting the work to these Societies in a phased manner. This change has to be brought about within a period of three months, and it has been desired that the progress may be intimated in the first week of February 1989. This change has to be brought about within a period of three months, and it has been desired that the progress may be intimated in the first week of February 1989. It has therefore, been decided that the following action should be taken by allthe SRMs/rms/jm (PO)s.- (i) Senior officers should visit all the depots, talk to the labourers working at the depot, help them in forming the Labour Co-operative societies and getting it registered with the appropriate State Authorities. (ii) List containing the names, age, etc. , of labourers working under the contract system should be prepared and all of them enlisted as the member of Labour Co-operative. (iii) They should be helped in obtaining the licence etc. , required under the provision of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. (iv) As and when the existing contract expire the next contract should be awarded only to the Labour Co-operatives, if the Societies have the capacity to undertake the work. (v) These Labour Co-operative Societies should also be encouraged to take composite H and T contracts as far as possible. An action plan should be drawn in each region in respect of each godown/depot where contractor has been engaged for H and T jobs, with reference to the date of expiry of the subsisting contract indicating the target dates for specific action and also by which date the labour Co-operative Societies would be formed in various depots. The progress should be regularly reviewed every fortnight by srms/jm (PO)s and should also be intimated to concerned zo/hqs every month as to reach by the 7th of the preceding month giving the position upto the end of previous month. 4. The compliance of these instructions should be strictly enforced by SRMs/im (PQ)". ( 14 ) THE second circular dated 16-3-1989 reads as under. "please refer to Circular No. 1/63/89/cont. , dated 19th January, 1989 issued from file of even number on the subject mentioned above. The Corporation has to actively participate in the formation of these societies by lending a helping hand in order to implement the policy of sponsoring Co-operative and replace the contract system in FCI in phased manner despite problems that are likely to arise in the course of implementing the objective. The Corporation has to actively participate in the formation of these societies by lending a helping hand in order to implement the policy of sponsoring Co-operative and replace the contract system in FCI in phased manner despite problems that are likely to arise in the course of implementing the objective. In order to encourage the formation of Labour Co-operative Societies it has since been decided to allow the following additional concessions in addition to those already allowed to those societies in accordance with headquarters, Circular No. F1/12/30-Cont. , dated 25-5-1981: 1. Extend assistance in the form of Monetary subsidy for paying to the staff of the Co-operatives on standard scale, lapsed over for a period of three years, 100% in the first year, 50% in the second year and 25% in the 3rd year and NIL from the fourth year. 2. Extend assistance in the form of accommodation and furniture for the office of the Co-operative Societies on a standard scale. 3. Provide furniture and utensils for the canteens to be run by the labour Co-operative Societies. However, for operational reasons, it is desirable that there should be only one Labour Co-operative Godown complex. Such Labour Co-operative Societies formed be awarded contracts without calling for the tenders and on the basis of current market rates". ( 15 ) DESPITE the above policy decisions taken by the Corporation, open tenders were invited for awarding handling contracts which were called in question by the respective Labour Co-operative Societies of the godowns of the Corporation at K. G. F. , Bangarpet and Bommapur (Hubli) by filing writ petitions in W. P. Nos. 19921, 19922, 24272, 19907 and 19908 of 1993 before this Court on the ground that the Corporation was bound to adhere to its policy decisions and any action taken in violation thereof would amount to infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution of india. ( 16 ) THE dispute raised in these writ petitions were ultimately set at rest by a Bench of this Court in the case of Karnataka Contract Labour and Transport Co-operative Society Limited, supra. The above two circulars (dated 19-1-1989 and dated 16-3-1989) were marked as Annexures- A. and B to the above writ petitions. The principal point, which required consideration by the Bench in the above cases, was to the following effect. 1. The above two circulars (dated 19-1-1989 and dated 16-3-1989) were marked as Annexures- A. and B to the above writ petitions. The principal point, which required consideration by the Bench in the above cases, was to the following effect. 1. Whether calling for tenders by the FCI for awarding contract for handling and transport work at KGF and Bangarpet godowns in Kolar District and at Bommapur godown at Hubli in Dharwar district is unauthorised and illegal being contrary to policy decisions at Annexures-A and B? ( 17 ) THE Division Bench answered the question by holding that. ". . . there is a clear-cut policy laid down by Annexures-A and B and the FCI has to consistently follow this policy. In our view once a policy decision is taken by a public sector undertaking like respondent 1 which is a 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 any action on its part which deviates from such settled policy would render the action arbitrary, unauthorised, illegal and would also attract the rigors of Article 14 of the Constitution of India". ( 18 ) FROM the above it is clear that the first Division Bench had held that the local depots/godowns of the FCI cannot invite tenders for awarding handling contracts for its godowns and they were bound to entrust the same to the Labour Co-operative Societies because they were bound by their policy decisions embodied in Annexures-A and B referred t,o above and any digression from the same during the subsistence of such policy oecisions would amount to arbitrary and discriminatory exorcise of power offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There was neither any occasion nor in fact this Court had held in the said judgment that any change in the policy decisions, even if otherwise found to be reasonable and was necessitated for proper conduct of its business, would be impermissible because of any statutory or constitutional bar or prohibition in this regard. ( 19 ) SUBSEQUENT to the above judgment, Circular dated 27-7-1994 (Annexure-G to the Writ Appeal Nos. 5365 to 5385 of 1998) was issued from the headquarters of the Corporation at New Delhi communicating to all its zonal and regional managers enumerating the benefits and concessions, which had been granted to the Labour Co-operative Societies. ( 19 ) SUBSEQUENT to the above judgment, Circular dated 27-7-1994 (Annexure-G to the Writ Appeal Nos. 5365 to 5385 of 1998) was issued from the headquarters of the Corporation at New Delhi communicating to all its zonal and regional managers enumerating the benefits and concessions, which had been granted to the Labour Co-operative Societies. According to the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the Corporation, these concessions inter alia pertained to remuneration, reimbursement of compensation payable under Workmen Compensation Act, development of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Scheme etc. ( 20 ) AFTER the above came a material development. In a dispute raised by some of Labour Unions a Division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 939 of 1986 and connected cases (DD: 1-8-1995), held that Labour Co-operative societies as envisaged under circulars dated 19-1-1989 and 16-3-1989 referred to above, were nothing but contractors and that exploitation of workers cannot be undone merely by substituting Co-operative societies in the shoes of the contractors. Similar views were taken by some of the other High Courts. ( 21 ) THE Board of Directors taking note of the above judicial pronouncements as also various other factors as noticed in their 252nd adjourned meeting dated 19-10-1996 (Annexure-5 to the affidavit by the senior Regional Manager, FCI filed on 6-9-2001) resolved as follows. "subject. WITHDRAWAL of various concessions to Co-operative Societies including Labour Co-operative Societies in FCI consequent upon decisions of High Courts. After protracted discussions, the Board resolved as under. "resolved that various concessions/preferences extended to the various Co-operative Societies including Labour Co-operative Societies be and are hereby withdrawn and such Societies shall continue to participate in tender enquiries at par with other private parties as per usual terms and conditions" ". ( 22 ) SUBSEQUENT to the said policy decisions taken by the Board of directors by which all earlier policy decisions of giving handling contracts only to Labour Co-operative Societies was given a go-by. But under the changed policy the Labour Co-operative Societies were permitted to participate and compete with other contractors. All the concessions which were earlier decided to be given to the Labour Co-operative societies under its Circular dated 27-7-1994 etc. , were also withdrawn. But under the changed policy the Labour Co-operative Societies were permitted to participate and compete with other contractors. All the concessions which were earlier decided to be given to the Labour Co-operative societies under its Circular dated 27-7-1994 etc. , were also withdrawn. ( 23 ) KEEPING in view the above policy decisions taken by the Board of directors, circular dated 22-11-1996 was issued by the Deputy Manager (IR-L) intimating all concerned that concessions given to the Labour co-operative Societies stood withdrawn. Thereafter, tender notifications were issued by the Regional Office/depot Manager inviting tenders from all eligible contractors who necessarily included Labour Co-operative societies for entrustment of contract for handling etc. of food grains at the three places K. G. F. , Bangarpet and Bommapur. The said tender notice (Annexure-A to the writ petition) as well as circular issued by the regional Manager dated 22-11-1996 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) was challenged by the Labour Co-operative Societies before this Court in w. P. Nos. 13433 and 13434 of 1997 which were allowed by the learned single Judge by order dated 1-8-1997. ( 24 ) THE above order of the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the division Bench in W. A. Nos. 5190 and 5191 of 1997 by holding that"the appellant-Corporation had issued circular, Annexure-B, withdrawing certain concessions and exemption granted in favour of the Co-operative Societies including the Labour Co-operative societies. It had also issued tender notice, Annexure-A. Being aggrieved, the Co-operative Societies filed a petition submitting therein that as the impugned circular and tender notice were contrary to the provisions of Section 10-A of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the judgments of this court, the same were liable to be quashed. The learned Single judge extensively dealt with the judgment relied upon by the co-operative Society and rightly concluded that the impugned circular and tender notice being contrary to the Court judgment, were liable to be quashed". ( 25 ) FROM the above discussions, it is quite clear that so far the policy decisions dated 19-10-1996 taken by the Board of Directors, who were the only Competent Authority to do so under Section 6 of the Act, was never assailed or questioned before this Court in any earlier proceedings and as such it still holds the field. ( 26 ) SRI Chidanandaiah, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent in w. A. Nos. ( 26 ) SRI Chidanandaiah, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent in w. A. Nos. 5365 to 5385 of 1998, has submitted that since there was a mention of the resolution dated 19-10-1996 of the Board in the circular dated 22-11-1996 issued by the Regional Manager (Annexure-B to W. P. Nos. 13433 and 13434 of 1997) which was quashed, therefore, in law, it should be presumed that the policy decisions taken by the Board of directors in their resolution passed on 19-10-1996 also stood quashed. ( 27 ) ON the other hand, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the correctness, legality or constitutionality of the policy decision of the Board of Directors adopted on 19-10-1996 was never a subject-matter of challenge in any earlier judicial proceeding before this Court and therefore it will be impermissible to presume that by implication the said policy decisions can be held to have been quashed, ( 28 ) WE can find an answer to the above controversy by adverting to the doctrine of sub-silentio. Professor P. J. Fitzgerald, Editor of the Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th edition explains the concept of sub-silentio at page 153 in these words. "a decision passes sub-silentio, on the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the Court or present to its mind. The Court may consciously decide in favour of one party because of point A, which it considers and pronounces upon. It may be shown, however, that logically the Court should not have decided in favour of the particular party unless it also decided point B in his favour; but point B was not argued or considered by the Court. In such circumstances, although point B was logically involved in the facts and although the case had a specific outcome, the decision is not an authority on point B. Point b is said to pass sub-silentio". ( 29 ) IN Lancaster Motor Company (London) Limited v Bremith Limited, the Court held that itself not bound by earlier decision as it was rendered without any argument, without reference to the crucial words of the rule and without any citation of the authority. ( 29 ) IN Lancaster Motor Company (London) Limited v Bremith Limited, the Court held that itself not bound by earlier decision as it was rendered without any argument, without reference to the crucial words of the rule and without any citation of the authority. ( 30 ) THE above principle was approved by our Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Gurnarn Kaur, wherein the bench held that. "this rule has ever since been followed. One of the chief reasons for the doctrine of precedent is that a matter that has once been fully argued and decided should not be allowed to be reopened. The weight accorded to dicta varies with the type of dictum. Mere casual expressions carry no weight at all. Not every passing expression of a Judge, however eminent, can be treated as an ex cathedra statement, having the weight of authority". ( 31 ) THE above enunciation of law having material bearing on the law of precedents have been followed with approval by the Supreme Court in its latter judgment in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v synthetics and Chemicals Limited and Another, wherein it has been held that. "the Courts thus have taken recourse to this principle for relieving from injustice perpetrated by unjust precedents. A decision which is not express and is not founded on reasons nor it proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. Uniformity and consistency are core of judicial discipline. But that which escapes in the judgment without any occasion is not ratio decidendi. In B. Shama Rao v Union Territory of Pondicherry, it was observed, 'it is trite to say that a decision is binding not because of its conclusion but in regard to its ratio and the principles, laid down therein'. Any declaration or conclusion arrived without application of mind or preceded without any reason cannot be deemed to be declaration of law or authority of a general nature binding as a precedent. Restraint in dissenting or overruling is for sake of stability and uniformity but rigidity beyond reasonable limits is inimical to the growth of law". Any declaration or conclusion arrived without application of mind or preceded without any reason cannot be deemed to be declaration of law or authority of a general nature binding as a precedent. Restraint in dissenting or overruling is for sake of stability and uniformity but rigidity beyond reasonable limits is inimical to the growth of law". ( 32 ) BEARING the above principles in mind we have absolutely no hesitation in holding that no earlier judgment of this Court had the occasion of considering validity of the policy decision taken by the Board of Directors of the Corporation in their resolution dated 19-10-1996 departing from its earlier policy decisions dated 19-1-1989 and 16-3-1989. It is for the reason that the said policy decision was not even in existence in 1993 when the first Division Bench judgment was pronounced. ( 33 ) SIMILARLY, so far as the 2nd Division Bench judgment is concerned, as we have already quoted above, there is no whisper in the judgment regarding validity or otherwise of those policy decisions. As of fact, this, as such was not at all an issue before the Court. Therefore, by applying the doctrine of sub-silentio enunciated by the Apex Court we hold that the subsequent policy decision of the Board of Directors of the corporation cannot be held to be impliedly bad in the light of any earlier pronouncement of this Court. ( 34 ) IN the present case, the learned Single Judge has interfered with the actions of the depot managers of the respective godowns of the corporation only by placing reliance on the earlier Division Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of Karnataka Contract Labour and transport Co-operative Society Limited, supra, and in W. A. No. 5910 of 1997 (DD: 31-10-1997) which can hardly have any avail to the controversy at hand in view of the subsequent policy decisions taken by the board of Directors in their meeting dated 19-10-1996 (Annexure-5 to the affidavit of Senior Manager, FCI, filed on 6-2-2001 ). ( 35 ) THE management of the Corporation vests in the Board of Directors. Section 6 of the Act empowers the Board to take policy decisions subject to guidelines provided in sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act. Section 6 reads as under. "6. Management. ( 35 ) THE management of the Corporation vests in the Board of Directors. Section 6 of the Act empowers the Board to take policy decisions subject to guidelines provided in sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act. Section 6 reads as under. "6. Management. (1) The general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs and business of the Corporation shall vest in a Board of Directors which may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things as may be exercised or done by the Corporation under this Act. (2) The Board of Directors, in discharging its functions, shall Act on business principles, having regard to the interests of the producer and consumer and shall be guided by such instructions on questions of policy as may be given to it by the Central Government. (3) If any doubt arises as to whether a question is or is not a question of policy, the decision of the Central Government thereon shall be final". (emphasis supplied) ( 36 ) FROM sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act, it is clear that the board of Directors in whom the management of affairs of the business of the Corporation vests, have to act (i) on the business principles, and (ii) having regard to the interest of the producers and consumers. While so acting, they are to be guided by the instructions given by the Central government on the questions of policy. Therefore, the policy decisions taken by the Board of Directors regarding awarding of handling contracts by inviting open tenders and withdrawing the concessions/preferences extended to the Labour Co-operative Societies by its earlier policy decisions has to be examined in the light of the above statutory parameters. The latter policy decision was never subjected to judicial scrutiny by challenging the same before the appropriate forum either on the above statutory parameters or on the ground that it was contrary to the instructions issued by the Central Government in this regard or as to whether even if any such instructions were there, to what extent it could have fettered the powers vested in the Board of Directors, who were required to Act on business principles and giving due regard to the interest of producers and consumers. ( 37 ) WE are making the above observations because the learned Advocate general appearing for the Corporation, by referring to the pleadings n the memorandum of appeal has submitted that the Corporation was constrained to change its earlier policy decisions because there were groups among the workers themselves and the Labour Co-operative Societies were not working smoothly because certain persons tried to exploit such workmen. He has also submitted that the Corporation by its experience found that awarding of contracts to the Labour Co-operative societies has resulted in heavy losses by way of demurrage charged by the Railways on account of non-clearance of goods from the Railway godowns in time and the internal disputes between the members of the society. According to him, these factors have seriously hampered the working of handling and transportation of food grains. According to him, these failures on the part of the Labour Co-operative Societies has resulted in great inconvenience to the producers and consumers and has played havoc with the public exchequer. He further submitted that because of the earlier policy decisions, the Corporation had lost its bargaining power of getting handling charges at the competitive market rates, which was contrary to the business principles, though it is one of the main guiding factor on which the Board of Directors were required to act under Section 6 (2) of the Act. ( 38 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have inter alia submitted that the Corporation was bound to Act strictly in accordance with the instructions issued by the Central Government and any deviation on this count would render new policy decision to be a nullity. According to them, in the present case, since nothing was brought on record to suggest that the Central Government had given any instructions contrary to its earlier decisions of giving handling contracts to Labour Co-operative Societies, the order passed by the learned Single Judge should not be interfered with. ( 39 ) IN our considered opinion, since the new policy decision dated 19-10-1996 taken by the Corporation in its 252nd adjourned meeting was never called in question at any point of time, we cannot in this intra-Court appeal examine the validity or correctness thereof either on the ground of arbitrariness or any statutory infraction of our own. ( 39 ) IN our considered opinion, since the new policy decision dated 19-10-1996 taken by the Corporation in its 252nd adjourned meeting was never called in question at any point of time, we cannot in this intra-Court appeal examine the validity or correctness thereof either on the ground of arbitrariness or any statutory infraction of our own. Anyhow, we leave it open to the aggrieved parties to question the said policy decision by availing such remedies as may be available to them. We leave all the rights and contentions of the parties open for that purpose. We are also of the opinion that questions pertaining to issuance and imperativeness of the instructions by the Central Government cannot be examined unless the Central Government is made a party and is heard in the matter. For the reasons best known to the respondents, they did not implied the Central Government as party respondent in the writ petitions, which in our considered opinion debars them from raising the pleas based on the above grounds. ( 40 ) FOR the present, since the latter policy decision taken by the corporation has not been so far held to be bad or inoperative, all the godown managers and other officers of the Corporation are bound to adhere to the same and award the handling contracts only by inviting open tenders. It is clarified that till the policy decisions taken by the board of Directors under their resolution dated 19-10-1996 is not interfered with by any competent Court, the same will hold the field and the handling contracts can be awarded only in terms of the said resolution. ( 41 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has erred in quashing the tender notices impugned in the writ petitions. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. ( 42 ) IN the result, the writ appeals are allowed. The parties to bear their costs. --- *** --- .