Judgment ( 1. ) CONTROVERSY which crops up for consideration in the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the constitution of India falls within a narrow compass as to whether the respondents are justified in their action of cancelling the letter of Intent for Kerosene/ldo dealership. ( 2. ) THE relevant facts for proper appreciation briefly are that in response to the advertisement for allotment of Kerosene/ldo dealership at Panchsheel Nagar, bhopal, the petitioner applied for the allotment in the proforma prescribed by the respondent oil company, respondent no. 2. The petitioner was interviewed by the dealer Selection Board on 8. 5. 2002 and was placed at serial no. 1 of the selection list dated 9. 5. 2002. A letter of Intent dated 21. 6. 2002 was issued to the effect that the petitioner shall make all the financial and other arrangements for operating the Kerosene/ldo dealership within six months. It is the contention of the petitioner that in response to the said letter of intent he purchased a land admeasuring 0. 058 hectares (580. 21) sq. mts at village Borda Teh. Huzur District bhopal vide registered sale deed dated 6. 7. 2002, obtained consent letters from state Bank of Indore, Bhopal and State Bank of India, Govindpura, Bhopal for grant of financial assistance and proceeded to seek no objection certificate for establishing a godown and dealership from the District Authorities, Dy. Director, industrial Health and Safety and from Janpad Panchayat Fanta. However, by letter dated 13. 8. 2002, Annexure P/17, the petitioner was informed about the cancellation of selection and cancellation of letter of Intent in respect of proposed dealership. This intimation was in pursuant to a policy decision of Government of india, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Communicated vide letter dated 9. 8. 2002; whereof all public sector oil companies were directed to cancel all the petrol Pumps/lpg Distributionships and Kerosene Dealerships made under recommendations of Dealer Selection Boards since 1. 1. 2000. This letter i. e. 9. 8. 2002 was however, axed by the Supreme Court in case of Omkar Lal Bajaj etc V. Union of India: AIR 2003 SC 2562 . And a challenge put forth by the petitioner to letter dated 13. 8. 2002 in W. P. N. o. 4590/2002 resulted in its disposal on the same line as Omkarlal Bajaj (supra) vide order dated 8. 1. 2003. And a challenge put forth by the petitioner to letter dated 13. 8. 2002 in W. P. N. o. 4590/2002 resulted in its disposal on the same line as Omkarlal Bajaj (supra) vide order dated 8. 1. 2003. In pursuant thereof the respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 28. 1. 2003, Annexure P/33, revoked the communication dated 13. 8. 2002 and advised the petitioner to proceed further in time with LOI for the proposed dealership. This was however without prejudice to any other right that the corporation may have against the petitioner in any respect whatsoever. In sequel thereof respondent by letter dated 27. 3. 2003 (Annexure P-22) addressed to Collector, Bhopal was requested to issue whole sale Kerosene/licence to the petitioner. ( 3. ) ON 23. 5. 2003, Annexure P/1, the petitioner was informed about the cancellation of selection and that of letter of Intent dated 21. 6. 2001. This cancellation allegedly was based on the complaint received from second empanelled candidate Shri Rajeev Agrawal. The complaints were investigated by the Director general, Anti Adulteration Cell Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and natural Gas, who observed that the selection of the petitioner for the said dealership was not proper. ( 4. ) ASSAILING the order, Annexure P/1, and questioning the authority of the director General, Anti Adulteration Cell, in recommending cancellation of selection as contained in Annexure R-3, the learned senior counsel makes the following submission. ( 5. ) IT is urged that, the order impugned suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. Because, being an instrumentality of the State, it was incumbent upon the Director general, Anti Adulteration cell to have acted in a fair and just manner. Pointing out from the contents of the observations contained in Annexure R/3, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the observations recorded by the director General were subjective in nature and contrary to the objective assessment made by the Dealership Selection Board and the observations were at the instance of the complainant who was related to a highly placed office bearer of a political party. ( 6. ) SECONDLY, it is contended that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before cancelling the letter of Intent and the entire enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and is therefore, bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed. ( 6. ) SECONDLY, it is contended that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before cancelling the letter of Intent and the entire enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and is therefore, bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed. ( 7. ) THE respondents on their turn have supported the action of cancellation of letter Intent and the cancellation of merit panel, which as contended was prepared despite of abolition of dealership selection Board on 9. 5. 2002 and a further decision to initiate fresh process for selection. ( 8. ) CONSIDERED the rival submissions put forth, by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 9. ) TAKING up the issue as to competency of the Director General Anti adulteration Cell to recommend the cancellation of selection of dealers, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 brings on record an office memorandum no. P-20030/1/2001-PP dated 20. 3. 2001 whereby a Director General, Anti Adulteration Cell in the Oil Co-ordination Committee (joint Secretary level) under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas was appointed. And another letter no P-43011/24/2000- 10 C dated 2. 5. 2001 has been brought on record whereof in paragraph 2 and 3 it is stipulated: "2. All complaints against the DSBs or the dealer selection process received by the Ministry or complaints against the Chairman and/or Members of DSBs received by the Ministry and the oil marketing companies will be forwarded to the office of Director General, Anti Adulteration Cell. Director General Anti Adulteration Cell, will then inquire into the complaints that are against the Chairpersons of DSBs or against the officials of the oil companies. The complaints against the empanelled candidates or against the process as such, received by the oil marketing companies and such complaints received by the Director General, anti Adulteration Cell will be forwarded by the Office of Director General, Anti Adulteration Cell to the oil marketing companies, to be dealt with in terms of procedure laid down in the guidelines circulated by this Ministry vide letter No. P-39012/1/99-10 C dated 9. 10. 2000. 3. The oil marketing companies after receipt of the complaints from the Director General, Anti Adulteration Cell will take action in terms of the guidelines and then send the report to director General, Anti Adulteration Cell. 10. 2000. 3. The oil marketing companies after receipt of the complaints from the Director General, Anti Adulteration Cell will take action in terms of the guidelines and then send the report to director General, Anti Adulteration Cell. As regards the inquiry report submitted by the Director General, Anti Adulteration Cell against the Chairperson and Members of DSBs, a decision of a Ministry would be conveyed to the concerned oil marketing company for compliance. " The above stipulations thus negatives the contentions of the petitioner that it is beyond the preview of Director General, Anti Adulteration Cell to recommend the cancellations. ( 10. ) IN respect of submissions regarding arbitrariness and fair play on the part of functionaries of the State. It has, in the considered opinion of this Court, come to be settled as law, that the instrumentalities of the State are under obligation to discharge their functions in a fair and just manner, even when such discharge of duty is an administrative power or a quasi-judicial power, because of the prevalence of rule of law. For an authority, please see A. K. Kraipak Vs. Union of India: AIR 1970 SC 150 , paragragh 13. Regarding the rules of natural justice, it has been held by the Apex Court in Suresh Koshy George V. University of Kerala: air 1969 SC 198 , that they are not embodied rules. Their lordships were pleased to observe further that what particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the frame work of the law under which enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a Court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the Court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case. ( 11. ) IN the case at hand, it is observed that by virtue of letter dated 21. 6. 2002, annexure P/5, it was categorically made clear to the petitioner that the letter of intent be not construed as a firm offer of dealership which can be confirmed/formalised only by an appointment letter followed by the signing of Standard dealership Agreement. Thus there is no concluded contract. 6. 2002, annexure P/5, it was categorically made clear to the petitioner that the letter of intent be not construed as a firm offer of dealership which can be confirmed/formalised only by an appointment letter followed by the signing of Standard dealership Agreement. Thus there is no concluded contract. It is further observed that the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas communicated vide letter dated 2. 8. 2002 the policy decision of the cancellation of all the petrol pumps/cpg Distributionship and Kerosene Dealerships made under recommendations of Dealer Selection Board since 1. 1. 2000. And the fact that government of India by letter dated 9. 5. 2002 informed all the Dealers Selection board that no Board is in existence. The issue therefore, which looms large is whether, it was within the competence of District Selection Board to have prepared a merit list on 9. 5. 2002; though the Board was aware of this fact. ( 12. ) THE petitioner has disputed the fact that there was a due intimation of the decision of cancellation and it is contended that the selection had completed before such cancellation. The petitioner denies the receiving of information of dissolution of the Board on 9. 5. 2002 in paragraph 2 (i) of its rejoinder dated 11. 4. 2004. ( 13. ) THE respondents have however, frescoed a different picture. The Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, respondent no. 1, in its reply while referring to the facts of complaint that the ministry had abolished the DSBs on 9. 5. 2002, but DSB Bhopal-I continued to function till evening of 9. 5. 2002 when the result were announced at 5. 30 PM, it is contended in paragraph 8 and 9 of the return that the complaint were got examined through Director general Anti Adulteration Cell whereupon considerable justification in the complaint was observed. The respondent no. 2, i. e. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, categorically states that in spite of the fact that the fax of abolition of Board was received by the Board headed by Shri K. C. Pare, President, DSB continued to conduct the interviews and prepared a merit list on 9. 5. 2002. It is contended in paragraph 2 and 3 of the return in the following terms: "2. 5. 2002. It is contended in paragraph 2 and 3 of the return in the following terms: "2. Large number of complaints were received in respect of various Dealers Selection Boards and the allotments were subjected to judicial scrutiny before the Apex Court. It is submitted that the Government of India abolished all the Dealers Selection Boards, keeping in view the irregularities committed by them. The government of India by letter dated 9th May 2002 informed all the Dealers Selection Boards that no Board is in existence and the fax was also received by the Board at Bhopal on 9th May, 2002 at 12. 00 noon. 3. In spite of the fact that the fax was received by the board headed by Shri Pare and it continued to conduct the interviews, prepared a merit list on 9. 5. 2002. The Dealers Selection Board could not have done so specially in view of the fact that it was non-existence on the date the interviews took place. The Board placed the petitioner at Serial No. l, Shri Rajiv agrawal at Serial No. 2 and Shri M. P. S. Bundela at Serial No. 3 in the order of merit. A copy of the recommendations of the Dealers selection Board dated 9. 5. 2002 is enclosed as Annexure R. 1. " Again, in paragraph 14 of the return, it is averred by respondent no. 2: "that in case of selection made by the Dealers Selection Board was unlawful as the Board was informed by the Ministry on 9th May 2002 at 12 noon that the Board had stood abolished. However, it proceeded with the selection process illegally for the reasons best known to it and the merit list was prepared. The merit list which was prepared by the authority not competent to do so has got no meaning, and therefore, the Ministry has rightly conveyed the recommendations of the AAC directing fresh selection in the matter for the location at Panchsheel Nagar, Bhopal. " ( 14. ) THE aforementioned averments in a return supported by an affidavit leaves no iota of doubt that the abolition of Dealership Selection Board Bhopal-I, by letter dated 9. 5. " ( 14. ) THE aforementioned averments in a return supported by an affidavit leaves no iota of doubt that the abolition of Dealership Selection Board Bhopal-I, by letter dated 9. 5. 2002 was well within the knowledge of its President and that being so, the propriety demands that the Board ought have recused itself from the entire Selection Process, but as evident from record, it proceeded with selection process and even declared a panel on 9. 5. 2002 which, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be termed as valid. Because any recommendation by a non existing body of persons cannot be termed as recommendations in the eyes of law. For a recommendations to be valid, they must emanate from a body duly constituted under law. In the present case since the existence of Board, which recommended and prepared a merit list on 9. 5. 2002, had no sanction of law, no mandamus can be issued for implementation of so called recommendations. In view of this all other contentions like arbitrariness and the failure to observe Rule of Natural Justice dissolves in thin air. ( 15. ) HAVING thus considered, this Court does not find any substance in the petition. In the result the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The respondents are at liberty to proceed with fresh selection as proposed vide letter dated 23. 4. 2003, annexure R-1/3 in accordance with law. However, no costs. Petition dismissed.