1. - The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that his rejection at the stage when the respondents were to judge the pre-qualification is not proper. The respondents considered the applications of the prospective tenderers at the pre-qualification stage. At that stage, tenderers were judged departmentally. The interested parties were not given any opportunity to establish their claims before the authority which decided the fate of those who deserved consideration.

2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner this is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Any decision making process which is in violation of the principles of natural justice is to be depricated. He draws support for his contention on the basis of a decision of this Court reported in 1991 (2) WLC 361 (Shree Mahalaxmi Mingrate Marketing Service Private Limited v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.) and has placed reliance on the paras 34, 35 and 36 which reads as under:

"34. In the present case it is apparent from the perusal of the fact which has come on record that the respondent Federation had entered into negotiation and discussion for many months be for deciding to appoint the petitioner as Selling Agent of its various products. A committee of 3 Senior Officers of the Federation had negotiated terms and conditions with the petitioner Company. After due consideration of different factors and especially the interest of the Federation, the Committee made recommendation for appointment of the petitioner as Selling Agent. Board of Directors of the Federation also considered the matter in detail and thereafter approved the appointment of the petitioner as Selling Agent for the products of the Federation. For atleast 6 months the petitioner was given to understand that his offer has been accepted and he was being appointed as Selling Agent. The petitioner was directed to establish infrastructure for starting the work for the last week of June, 1990. It was asked to go ahead for making suitable arrangements for that purpose. Thereafter the letter of intent was issued to the petitioner on 1.6.1990. The petitioner had undertaken market survey, prepared marketing plan, established its office and took steps for appointment of distributors and engaging of staff. In the process the petitioner had incurred a lot of expenditure. Neither in the letter dated 1.6.1990 nor in any other communication sent to the petitioner, there was a stipulation that in case of failure of the petitioner to sign the agreement or to furnish bank guarantee or any other document, it intended to cancel the letter of intent. The notings of the Managing Director on 29.6.1990 and 30.6.1990 clearly indicate that the Hon'ble Minister of State for Dairy Development had asked the Federation not to take further action without his instructions. This is also corroborated by the statement made by the respondent No. 4 on the floor of the Legislative Assembly on 16.7.1990. The note recorded by the Managing Director on 29.6.1990 is very crucial. It clearly records the Dairy Minister has desired that no further action in the matter till the Government does not clear the case. Obviously, therefore, the plea of the respondent Federation that the petitioner had not signed the agreement on 12.6.1990 or any other date thereafter, cannot be accepted as correct. The sudden change stance of the Federation on 15.7.1990 is inexplicable. No reason is borne out from the reply of the Federation or from the record which has been placed for the perusal of the Court. There has been no application of mind on the considerations relating to the interest of the Federation or the public interest. There is re- examined the question of appointing the petitioner as Selling Agent and after a scrutiny of the matter had come to the conclusion that it would be contrary to public interest to finalise the agreement with the petitioner and therefore, it should be cancelled. On 16.7.19