07.12.1950 issued by the President oF India wasnot considered by the learned Single ludge. All the villages of Paloncha Taluq of Warangal District except some Villages, are included in the Scheduled Areas, but the subject village is not exempted from the said list and the same forms part of Paloncha Mandal. The said aspect is also stated in the counter affidavit, which was extracted by the learned Single Judge atparagraph 6 of the order, but that aspect was not dealt with by the learned Single Judge and the saidjudgment is sub silentio on that aspect, as such, petitioner cannot claim relief by relying on the said judgment. Precedents subsilentio and without arguments are of no moment IMunicipalCorporationof Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur (1989) l SCC 1011. Decision strb-silentio or renderedper incurriam, ceases to be a binding precedent(see Commissioner of Income Tax v. B.R. Constructions [(1993)202 ITR 222 (AP) (FB)]. Any declarationor conclusion, arrived at without beingpreceded by any reason, cannot be deemed to be the declaration of law or authority of a general nature binding as aprecedent. (State of U.P v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 139; B.Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, AIR 1967 SC 1480). The view, if any, expressed without analysing the statutoryprovision cannot be treated as a bindingprecedent.(N.Bhargavan Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2004) 13 SCC 277. A decision, which is neither founded on reasonsnor itproceeds on
