Antony Dominic, J.

Petitioners in W.P. (C) 10699/12 and 11666/12 are the appellants. The writ petitions, raising common issues, were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment. For the same reason, these writ appeals were also heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment, treating writ appeal 2142/12 as the leading case.

2. W.A.2142/12 arises from the judgment in W.P.(C)10699/12. The appellant and the third respondent, a Government company, responded to Ext.P2 tender notice. The contract was ultimately awarded to the third respondent, extending them the benefit of Ext.P3 Government Order whereby the Government declared that the third respondent is pre- qualified to undertake civil works put to tender by State Government Departments except National Highway works and Central Government sponsored works and Exts.P4 and P5, which allowed them a price preference of 10% on the lowest quoted rate. In the said circumstances, the writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P3 to P5 and consequently to quash the award of work to the third respondent. In the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge upheld the Government Orders and the work awarded