JUDGMENT : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. The petitioner- a partnership firm has sought a writ of certiorari to quash the 1st respondent’s decision considering the petitioner to be ineligible to bid in respect of the tenders issued by it for the work of handling and transportation of food-grain. The petitioner has also challenged the award of work by the 1st respondent in favour of respondent No. 3 – M/s Mandeep Transport Company. 2. The 1st respondent issued an e-tender notice inviting online tenders under the two bid system for the appointment of contractors for loading/unloading/handling and transport of food-grains and allied material for a period of two years. One submitted a bid. The estimated contract value was Rs. 6,03,06,000/-. (A) The notice inviting tenders contains the following clauses:- “Terms & Conditions:- 3. In case of Handling & Transport Contract:- (i) Experienced contractors of FCI participating in the new tenders as a bidder having insufficient experience by giving undertaking that 10% of additional B.G. would be submitted for relaxation of experience. AND (ii) The contractors submitting tenders having experience in handling contract has to deposit the following documents in proof of deposit of EPF timely and correctly:- (a) No Dues Certificate from the concerned RPFC to the effect that the contractor has deposited the PF dues in respect of number of workers engaged by him for the experience period/contract period correctly and timely. (b) The copies of monthly challan for the experience period. 6. All HTC have to ensure that all statutory provisions such as EPF/ESI/Contract Labour Act etc. are strictly complied with.” (B) As we mentioned earlier, bids were invited under the two envelope system. Part-A pertains to the “Technical Bid”. The technical bid, inter alia, contains ‘General Information to Tenderers’. The respondents relied upon the following provisions in the ‘General Information to Tenderers’:- “3. Qualification Conditions for Tender: (I) Tenderer should have experience of Rake Handling and/or Transportation duly obtained from Manufacturer/PSU/Govt. Dept./Public Ltd. Company/Private Limited Company dealing in the field of fertilizer, food grains, cement, sugar, coarse grains or any other commodity. Tenderer should have executed in any of the immediate preceding five years the work of value: (a) At least 25% of the estimated value of the contract to be awarded, in one single contract: OR (b) 50% of the estimated value of the contract to be awarded, in different contracts. Tenderer should have executed in any of the immediate preceding five years the work of value: (a) At least 25% of the estimated value of the contract to be awarded, in one single contract: OR (b) 50% of the estimated value of the contract to be awarded, in different contracts. In case of partnership, only the experience of the firm will be reckoned and for the purpose the experience of the individual partners will not be counted. 4. Disqualification Conditions: (I) Tenderers who have been blacklisted or otherwise debarred by FCI or any department of Central or State Government or any other Public Sector Undertaking will be ineligible during the period of such blacklisting or for a period of 5 years from the date of blacklisting/debarment, whichever is earlier. (II) Any Tenderer whose contract with the Food Corporation of India, or any department of Central or State Government or any other Public Sector Undertaking has been terminated before the expiry of the contract period at any point of time during last five years, will be ineligible. (III) Tenderer whose Earnest Money Deposit and/or Security Deposit has been forfeited by Food Corporation of India or any department of Central or State Government or any other Public Sector Undertaking, during the last five years, will be ineligible. (IV) If the proprietor/any of the partners of the Tenderer firm/any of the Director of the Tenderer company have been, at any time, convicted by a Court of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years or more, such Tenderer will be ineligible. (V) While considering ineligibility arising out of any of the above clauses incurring of any such disqualification in any capacity whatsoever (even as a proprietor, partner in another firm, or as director a company etc.) will render the Tenderer disqualified. (VI) A Hindu Undivided Family (either as a proprietor or partner of a firm) shall not be entitled to apply for tender. Any tender submitted in the capacity of Hindu Undivided Family (either as a proprietor or partner of a firm) shall be summarily rejected. 8. Submission of Tender: (a) The tender shall be submitted online in two parts viz., technical bid and price bid. (b) All supporting documents except tender document have to be scanned and uploaded in the Technical Bid. Any tender submitted in the capacity of Hindu Undivided Family (either as a proprietor or partner of a firm) shall be summarily rejected. 8. Submission of Tender: (a) The tender shall be submitted online in two parts viz., technical bid and price bid. (b) All supporting documents except tender document have to be scanned and uploaded in the Technical Bid. Price Bid as per Appendix VII provided in part-B, has to be scanned, encrypted and uploaded at the requisite places in the e-Procurement system. (c) The envelope/packet in online containing the technical bid shall include the following:- (i) All the annexures & appendices of MTF duly signed on each page by the Tenderer should be scanned and uploaded in e-procurement portal. (ii) Earnest Money Deposit details along with receipt if any. (iii) List of scanned copy of documents attached as per the format in Appendix-II, duly signed by the Tenderer. *The Tenderer shall quote one uniform percentage below or above the schedule of rates as per appendix VII (Price Bid). In case separate rates are quoted for handling and transport operation, total estimated cost of both the operations for the contractual period taking into account the volume of operation is to be worked out on the basis of the tendered rates to arrive at the lowest rate. (d) Tenders which do not comply with these instructions shall be summarily rejected.” 3. The 1st respondent had appointed a Regional Bid Evaluation Committee which submitted a report in respect of the bids received by the 1st respondent for the various centres. As far as the Cheeka centre is concerned, the Committee observed as under:- 9. Scanned copy of EPF Code No. and proof of deposit of EPF for the relevant experience period. A complaint dated 05.01.2017 by M/s Mandeep Transport Company, Ambala Cantt. against M/s Dharampal & Company, Kaithal was received that their partners Sh. Dharampal Saini and Sh. Mahabir Singh have not deposited EPF against MLC Pundri and Pai of DFSC & HWC and same was got verified from District Office Kurukshetra and EPFO, Karnal. It is confirmed that partners of M/s Dharampal & Company, Kaithal, Sh. Dharampal Saini and Sh. Mahabir Singh has not deposited complete EPF dues in respect of MLC Pai and Pundri, 2014-15. The Committee accordingly opined that the petitioner’s bid may be considered as technically disqualified for the handling and transport contract, Cheeka. 4. It is confirmed that partners of M/s Dharampal & Company, Kaithal, Sh. Dharampal Saini and Sh. Mahabir Singh has not deposited complete EPF dues in respect of MLC Pai and Pundri, 2014-15. The Committee accordingly opined that the petitioner’s bid may be considered as technically disqualified for the handling and transport contract, Cheeka. 4. We will first deal with an objection raised on behalf of the respondents which does not form a part of the decision of the Committee. It was contended that the petitioner lacked the necessary experience. The required experience is stipulated in clause 3 of the Terms and Conditions of the notice inviting tenders. The petitioners at Annexure P-2 tabulated the details to establish that they had the requisite experience. The petitioners contend that they had executed at the relevant time transport work of the value of 50 per cent of the estimated value of the contract that formed the subject matter of the notice inviting tenders. The respondents placed reliance on the fact that in the column ‘Nature of work/contract executed’, the alphabets ‘HTC’, which is an abbreviation for ‘Handling and Transport Contract’, are used. The reliance on this was in view of clause 3 of the terms and conditions set out above which requires the contractors submitting the tenders having experience in handling contracts to submit the documents specified therein in proof of deposit of EPF in a timely and correct manner. The contention is that the petitioners relied upon their experience even as handling contractors and were, therefore, bound to submit the documents in proof of deposit of EPF. 5. The contention is not well founded. First as it was rightly agreed by Mr. Gupta if a bidder is not required by law to comply with the provisions of the EPF Act he cannot be and disqualified. In other words, it is not only parties who fall within the ambit of the EPF Act who are eligible to participate in the tender process. The clause does not apply to the petitioners as they relied upon their experience in transport works and not in handling works. In this regard, the last column of the table at Annexure P-2 has the remark “During the contract period only transport work has been carried out” (emphasis supplied). The clause does not apply to the petitioners as they relied upon their experience in transport works and not in handling works. In this regard, the last column of the table at Annexure P-2 has the remark “During the contract period only transport work has been carried out” (emphasis supplied). The reason that the alphabets ‘HTC’ are used in the column requiring the nature of work/contract executed to be specified is that, that is the manner in which the tenders in the earlier cases had been issued. The clarification in the remarks column that the petitioners had carried out only transport work was not denied by the respondents on the basis of any other evidence. It was denied only during the hearing before us and only on account of the reference to the alphabets ‘HTC’ in the other column. However, with a view to satisfying ourselves, we directed the petitioner to produce the certificates issued by the 1st respondent which the petitioner did. The said certificates also contain the remark “During the contract period, only transport work has been carried out”. These certificates are issued by the 1st respondent itself. The petitioner-firm, therefore, has the requisite experience in transport contracts. 6. It was then contended that the decision of the Committee was correct as two out of the five partners of the petitioner-firm had not deposited the EPF against the Mandi Labour Contractor (MLC) for Pundri and Pai centres of the District Food and Supply Controller and Haryana Warehousing Corporation. The respondents submitted that in view of the terms and conditions stipulated in the notice inviting tenders set out earlier, the petitioner would be ineligible. In this regard, they relied upon the provisions of the notice inviting tenders and the other tender documents set out earlier. The respondents relied upon clause 6 of the terms and conditions set out earlier which requires all handling and transport contractors to ensure that all statutory provisions such as the EPF are strictly complied with. 7. Firstly, clause 6 pertains to a post-contractual stipulation. This is clear from the language of clause 6 which reads:- “6. All HTC have to ensure that all statutory provisions such as EPF/ESI/Contract Labour Act etc. are strictly complied with.” The words “have to ensure” and the words “are strictly complied with” refer to the contractor’s obligation during the course of the execution of the contract. This is clear from the language of clause 6 which reads:- “6. All HTC have to ensure that all statutory provisions such as EPF/ESI/Contract Labour Act etc. are strictly complied with.” The words “have to ensure” and the words “are strictly complied with” refer to the contractor’s obligation during the course of the execution of the contract. Clause 6 does not state that the requirements ought to have been complied with in respect of earlier transactions. 8. Secondly, clause 6 applies to the party that submits the tender. The petitioner-firm and not the individual partners of the petitioner-firm had submitted the tender. We will assume that two of the partners of the petitioner had defaulted in the payment of EPF in respect of their ventures with the government departments. It is important to note, however, that their alleged defaults were according to the respondents themselves in respect of the contracts entered into by them in their individual capacity unrelated to the activities of the petitioner-firm. It is true that a partnership firm is not a separate legal entity and it is only a compendious method of referring to the partners collectively. However, considering the clauses of the tender documents, it is apparent that even assuming that the non-payment of EPF would render a bidder ineligible what attracts the disqualification is the non-payment of EPF by the very bidder and not the non-payment of EPF by another party even if the other party happens to be a partner in the firm that submits a tender. We hasten to add that it may be a different matter altogether such as where the partnership that submits the bid is constituted only for the purpose of avoiding or circumventing the provisions or where all the partners are defaulters under the EPF Act. Nothing of that sort, however, is alleged by the Committee. 9. Our view is supported by the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short the EPF Act). Sections 2 (e) and (f) of the EPF Act read as under:- “2. Nothing of that sort, however, is alleged by the Committee. 9. Our view is supported by the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short the EPF Act). Sections 2 (e) and (f) of the EPF Act read as under:- “2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (e) “employer” means— (i) in relation to an establishment which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory, including the agent of such owner or occupier, the legal representative of a deceased owner or occupier and, where a person has been named as a manager of the factory under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Factories Act, 1948, the person so named; and (ii) in relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment, and where the said affairs are entrusted to a manager, managing director or managing agent, such manager, managing director or managing agent. (f) “employee” means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an establishment, and who gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer, and includes any person— (i) employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment; (ii) engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961, or under the standing orders of the establishment.” 10. For the purpose of the EPF Act, a party may be an employer in more than just one capacity and in different ventures. He may be an employer in relation to an establishment, which is a factory, if he is the owner or occupier of the factory. He may be an employer if he is a person or an authority who or which has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment. He may be an employer where the affairs of the establishment are entrusted to him as a manager, managing director or managing agent. The provisions of the tender documents do not indicate that such a person’s default under the EPF Act would be visited upon another party that submits a bid merely because the party in default is also concerned with or connected to the party submitting the bid. 11. The provisions of the tender documents do not indicate that such a person’s default under the EPF Act would be visited upon another party that submits a bid merely because the party in default is also concerned with or connected to the party submitting the bid. 11. If the 1st respondent intended debarring a partnership firm merely on the ground that one of its partners may be a defaulter under the EPF Act, it would have worded the terms and conditions of the tender documents entirely differently. It is important in this regard to note clause 4(V) which is as follows:- “(V) While considering ineligibility arising out of any of the above clauses incurring of any such disqualification in any capacity whatsoever (even as a proprietor, partner in another firm, or as director a company etc.) will render the Tenderer disqualified.” Clause 4 which is in Part ‘A’ i.e. the Technical Bid has the caption: “4. DISQUALIFICATION CONDITIONS”. The opening words of sub-clause (V): “while considering the ineligibility arising out of any of the above clauses….” indicate that the ineligibility referred to therein is restricted to the preceding sub-clauses (I) to (IV) of clause 4. Thus, when it was intended to disqualify a firm for a default of its partner, it was so provided expressly. The objectionable acts of a partner of a firm which are not in relation to the activities of the firm and which are not undertaken by the partner as a partner of the bidding firm are not visited upon the firm for all purposes and in all respects. 12. In any event, the reliance upon clause 4(V) of the ‘General Information to Tenderers’ is not well founded. The words “arising out of any of the above clauses” refer at the highest to the clauses in the document ‘General Information to Tenderers’. We set out all the sub-clauses of clause 4 precisely for this reason. The clauses under this document do not deal with EPF. Thus, though the ‘General Information to Tenderers’ may form part of the contractual documents, clause 4(V) thereof does not render a party ineligible on account of the EPF not having been paid. 13. We set out all the sub-clauses of clause 4 precisely for this reason. The clauses under this document do not deal with EPF. Thus, though the ‘General Information to Tenderers’ may form part of the contractual documents, clause 4(V) thereof does not render a party ineligible on account of the EPF not having been paid. 13. Faced with this, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that all the partners of the petitioner are jointly and severally liable for the dues of the two partners under the EPF Act, even though the other three partners of the petitioner-firm had nothing to do with the transactions entered into by two of their partners in respect whereof amounts are due by the two partners under the EPF Act. They relied upon Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 which read as under:- “25. Liability of a partner for acts of the firm – Every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. 26. Liability of the firm for wrongful acts of a partner – Where, by the wrongful act or omission of a partner acting in the ordinary course of the business of a firm, or with the authority of his partners, loss or injury is caused to any third party, or any penalty is incurred, the firm is liable therefore to the same extent as the partner.” 14. The argument is unsustainable. Section 25 makes every partner liable jointly and severally with all the other partners “for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner”. Thus, every partner of a firm is jointly and severally liable “for all acts of the firm” in which they are partners and not in respect of acts other than of the firm. Partners of a firm are not liable, therefore, for the acts of each other which are not for or in connection with or related to the firm. A view to the contrary would lead to the most astonishing results. It would mean this. Where a firm has five partners and two of its partners are liable to third parties in respect of transactions entered into by them in their individual capacity totally unconnected with the affairs of the firm, the other three partners would also be liable for the same. It would mean this. Where a firm has five partners and two of its partners are liable to third parties in respect of transactions entered into by them in their individual capacity totally unconnected with the affairs of the firm, the other three partners would also be liable for the same. The partners are jointly and severally liable for the acts of their partners only in connection with the firm in which they are partners and not in respect of the liabilities of their partners incurred independently and unconnected with the affairs of the firm. 15. This brings us to Section 26 of the Indian Partnership Act. Section 26 clearly makes the firm liable for the wrongful acts or omissions of a partner “acting in the ordinary course of the business of the firm”. It does not make the firm liable for the wrongful acts or omissions of a partner acting otherwise than in the course of the business of the firm. In other words, where a co-partner acts wrongfully or omits to do something wrongfully in respect of a matter unconnected to the business of the firm, the firm cannot be made liable for the same. A view to the contrary even in respect of Section 26 would lead to the most astonishing consequences. It would make all the partners of the firm liable for the wrongful acts or omissions of one of their partners in respect of his conduct otherwise than in connection with the business of the firm. 16. The respondents also relied upon sub-clause (d) of clause 8 to support the petitioner’s disqualification. It was, however, necessary to set out the earlier clauses in view of the respondents’ contention that sub-clause (d) relates not merely to the sub-clauses that precede in clause 8, but to all other terms and conditions in the tender documents which also form part of the contract. We will presume that sub-clause (d) of clause 8 requires the summary rejection of tenders which do not comply not only with the preceding sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause 8, but for failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions. However, for such a rejection, there must be a non-compliance. We have already held that the petitioners did not have to furnish the details regarding the EPF. The question, therefore, of clause 8(d) being breached does not arise. 17. However, for such a rejection, there must be a non-compliance. We have already held that the petitioners did not have to furnish the details regarding the EPF. The question, therefore, of clause 8(d) being breached does not arise. 17. On behalf of the respondents, reliance was placed on the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court dated 02.05.2013 in CWP-2353-2013 titled as Ram Lal Vs. Food Corporation of India and another. The case is clearly distinguishable. Reliance is placed on paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgement which read as under:- “10. Under Clause (vi) of Note 7 relating to documents to be attached with tender, the tenderer was required to attach copy of EPF Code number and proof of deposit of EPF for the relevant experience period. It reads thus:- “(vi) Copy of EPF Code Number and proof of deposit of EPF for the relevant experience period, if applicable i.e. No Due Certificate from the concerned RPFC and copies of monthly challans for the experience period is also required to be attached with the tender.” 11. The petitioner had left Column No. (vi) in the form blank and had not marked the same. It was not disputed as was apparent from the accounts submitted by the petitioner that he was paying EPF and that there was EPF code. In such circumstances, it was mandatory for the petitioner to have filled the said column. Argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed an undertaking with regard to the submission of Performance guarantee in the form of bank guarantee of 10% of the contract value from SBI Bank or its associate Banks or the other Public Sector Banks and the filing of the experience certificate was surplusage, would not help the petitioner as Clause III of the Qualification Conditions for tender was not applicable to him being tender for transport contract only. Once the petitioner was depositing the EPF, the mentioning of the relevant code and attaching the relevant documents in support thereof was essential. Clause 10 of the terms and conditions of the tender specifically provided that the tenders which were not accompanied by all the Schedules, annexures intact and duly filled in and signed shall be liable to be rejected. Respondent No.1 had, thus, rightly rejected the technical bid of the petitioner. Clause 10 of the terms and conditions of the tender specifically provided that the tenders which were not accompanied by all the Schedules, annexures intact and duly filled in and signed shall be liable to be rejected. Respondent No.1 had, thus, rightly rejected the technical bid of the petitioner. The technical bid having been rightly rejected, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the price bid of the petitioner was lower than respondent No. 2 does not advance the case of the petitioner.” The clause itself clearly stated that the EPF code number and proof of deposit of EPF for the relevant experience period was to be provided ‘if applicable’. From paragraph 11 of the judgement, it is clear that it was found that the petitioner in that case was paying EPF and that there was an EPF code. Thus, in that case, clause (vi) of Note 7 was applicable to the petitioner and it is for that reason that the Division Bench held that “In such circumstances, it was mandatory for the petitioner to have filled the said column”. A little later in paragraph 11, the Division Bench once again held that once the petitioner was depositing EPF, the mentioning of the relevant code and attaching the relevant documents in support thereof was essential. The Division Bench understandably did not hold that even if the provision of EPF was not applicable, the bidder was bound to furnish it. The judgement, therefore, is of no assistance to the respondents. 18. The respondents also relied upon the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court dated 05.09.2016 in CWP-18200-2016 titled as M/s Sandeep Transport Company Vs Food Corporation of India and another. Clause 3(I) relating to qualification conditions for tender was referred to which is similar to clause 3 in the case before us. The Division Bench also referred to the application form under the clause ‘List of documents to be attached’. Serial No. 6 in this list required the bidders to furnish a copy of the EPF code number and proof of deposit of EPF for the relevant experience period “if applicable”. Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the judgement read as under:- “(5) The petitioner admittedly did not attach the proof of deposit of EPF and also did not disclose the EPF Code Number. Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the judgement read as under:- “(5) The petitioner admittedly did not attach the proof of deposit of EPF and also did not disclose the EPF Code Number. For this deficiency, its technical bid has been turned down vide the impugned order (Annexure P4) stating that:- “M/s Sandeep Transport Co., Ambala Cantt. has enclosed the work experience certificate of HTC Barara (Contract period 16.06.12 to 15.06.2014) for transportation work only. Whereas, at Shahbad Railhead handling work is also performed by the contractor and EPF liability, clearance is mandatory requirement. Since, M/s Sandeep Transport Co. has not submitted EPF Code No. payment of EPF dues and N.D.C. from concerned RPFC of experience period during which he executed composite Handling and Transport work. Hence Technical bids of M/s Kulbir Singh & Company, Kurukshetra and M/s Sandeep Transport Co., Ambala Cantt. are rejected.” (7) In our considered view, Clause 3(a) of the E-Tender Notice (Annexure P1) has to be read with Clause 3(I) of the DNIT issued by FCI (Annexure P3) and once read together both the conditions are mutually supplementary, leaving no escape except to hold that without ‘Work Experience' of ‘Railhead Handling or Transportation', the tenderer would be ineligible and once such tenderer relies upon the ‘Work Experience' of Railhead Handling or Transportation, he was obligated to disclose the EPF Code number as well as No Due Certificate of EPF deposits. Since the petitioner concededly failed to comply with the last condition, no fault can be found with the rejection of its technical bid.” This judgement is also distinguishable on the same basis. It was found as a matter of fact that in respect of the work done by the petitioner and on the basis whereof it obtained the experience certificate, EPF liability was a mandatory requirement. It is in that context that in paragraph 7 the Division Bench held that the petitioner in that case was obligated to disclose the EPF code number as well as the no due certificate of EPF deposits. The petitioner’s bid was held to be liable to be rejected on account of it having failed to disclose the same. The judgement is, therefore, of no assistance to the respondents. 19. Reliance was also placed on the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court dated 17.05.2016 in CWP-7073-2016 titled as M/s Danial Masih Satprit Singh Bedi Vs. The petitioner’s bid was held to be liable to be rejected on account of it having failed to disclose the same. The judgement is, therefore, of no assistance to the respondents. 19. Reliance was also placed on the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court dated 17.05.2016 in CWP-7073-2016 titled as M/s Danial Masih Satprit Singh Bedi Vs. State of Punjab and others to which one of us (S.J. Vazifdar, CJ) was a party. The judgement is of no assistance in deciding this case. In that case, it was held that the experience of the partners could be considered while considering the experience of the firm. The contention that if the experience of the partners can be considered while considering the experience of the firm, it must follow that the liability for disqualification of a partner must also be visited upon the firm is not well founded. The two are distinct matters. Eligibility is one thing, disqualification another. This process of reasoning breaks down when on the other hand it could equally be said that the qualification of one partner would suffice. That would lead to an inconsistency for, which of the two ought to operate – the qualification or the disqualification? The view that we have taken on the other hand does not result in this inconsistency. Absent a term to the contrary the disqualification in the present case must be tested qua the bidder i.e. the petitioner firm and not qua the petitioner’s individual partners. 20. The undertaking on behalf of the petitioner-firm that they will clear all the EPF dues even of their partners functioning in any other capacity or in any other manner whatsoever even otherwise than as partners of the petitioner firm is accepted. It is needless to clarify that if we had found the petitioner to be disqualified the undertaking would not have removed their disqualification and made them eligible. 21. In the circumstances, the impugned orders holding the petitioner to be ineligible to bid in respect of the tenders issued by the 1st respondent are quashed and set aside. The petitioner’s tender shall be considered. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.