Heard Mr. NS Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. KK Mahanta, learned Senior Central Govt. Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner Sri Jyotish Talukdar. Petitioner happens to be the proprietor of M/s Ganesh Electric Stores which is registered proprietorial firm dealing in a electrical contracts. M/s Ganesh Electric Stores happens to be a Registered Class 1 (A) contractor as well as an approved contractor of CPWD, NF Railway, MES etc. An advertisement was issued by the Executive Engineer of the Gauhati Electrical Division No. l CPWD on behalf of President of India for pre-qualification from approved and eligible contractors of CPWD and appropriate class of MES, Railway, P & T, State PWD and from manufacturers etc having experience in similar works. The work which was to be done was residential, non residential building for NIPCCD at Guwahati (SH) providing an installation of 11 KV Sub-station equipments. The advertisement was published in various newspapers, including Daily Agradoot dated 27.7.98. Various pre-requisite qualifications were laid down in the said advertisement including past experience of the contractor in the completion of similar work of about 80% of the desired work. The willing parties were also required to furnish attested copies of latest income tax clearance certificate, copies of the award letter and certificate of satisfactory completion of the works done by them. Petitioner's allegation is that he applied for issuance of the tender form and complied with all the requirement. Six other parties also applied. Though tender form was issued to others but. it was not issued to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite qualifications which were laid down as the pre-requisite qualifications for issuance of tender form. The names of the parties to whom the tender forms were issued by respondents on their alleged satisfaction of the pre-requisite qualifications have been given in the statement which has been filet as Annexure 2 to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents. At page 13 of the said affidavit at SI Nos 7 and 8 names of Electro Dynamics and Electronics firms are mentioned. From perusal thereof the allegations made by petitioner about these two firms is fully substantiated. At page 13 of the said affidavit at SI Nos 7 and 8 names of Electro Dynamics and Electronics firms are mentioned. From perusal thereof the allegations made by petitioner about these two firms is fully substantiated. Petitioner has filed an application with the Executive Engineer inviting his notice to the issue of tender form to M/s Electro Dynamics firm though that firm had not made any application pursuant to the issue of the advertisement. He also pointed out that another party namely M/s Electro kings also did not fulfil the pre-requisite qualification still were issued tender form. No reply was received by the petitioner from the respondents to his above mentioned letter hence he approached this Court by means of this writ petition. Respondents had filed counter affidavit in which they have reiterated their stand that the petitioner did not fulfil the pre-requisite qualifications justifying issuance of the tender form to him. Petitioner does not dispute this stand of respondents. He however contends £ that apart from the Electro Dynamics Firm tender formas also issued to M/s Electronics, Babupatty, Jorhat who had not furnished the certificate of completion of work though submission of such certificate was a condition precedent for the issuance of the tender form. This fact apart from the fact that M/s Electro Dynamics firm had not applied for the issue of the tender form and still the ^ tender form was issued to them stands admitted by respondents in para 7 of their affidavit-in-opposition. The relevant part of the para reads as follows” “The Electro Dynamics firm is a registered first class contractor of Guwahati was allowed to participate in pre-qualification with a view to bring it better and fair competition since only 7 Nos set of application received by closing date of 20.8.98 by allowing a firm which was familiar with the working environment of the region.” The aforesaid statement of the respondents clearly proves the case of the petitioner that tender form was issued to M/s Electro Dynamics though that firm had not applied for it whereas it was not issued to him although he had applied for it in time on the ground of not satisfying the pre-requisite qualification. The explanation of respondents that since there were only 7 applicants for the issuance of the forms hence the form was issued to non applicant to make it more competitive does not appear to be good ground. There is no doubt in the legal position that award of contract has to be made on competitive basis. It is in the discretion of the buyer to allot the work to a party who is found by it to be suitable and offers a competitive price for the execution of the work. In cases of the award of a work of public nature it has to be ensured that the work is awarded in a manner which reflects fairness of action. It is for ensuring fairness in the governmental functions that before any contract is awarded to a contractor applications are invited from competent parties. The field of consideration is thus confined to only those parties who file applications within the stipulated time and fulfil the requirements which have been mentioned in the notice inviting tender as the pre-requisites. If the applications which are found upto the mark are not sufficient in number, it is within discretion of the purchaser to issue fresh NIT to invite more applications from more applicants by giving the NIT a more wider circulation. Thus in the present case if respondents found that sufficient number of parties had not applied for issuance of tender form it was open for them to have cancelled the NIT and issued a fresh one for inviting more applications. It however does not appear to be appropriate course to adopt in such a case to include in the field of consideration a party or person who had not applied as the per notice. Hence there can not be a justification for issuing tender form to M/s Electro Dynamics. So far M/s Electro kings are concerned mere perusal of Annexure at item 8 would show that they too did not fulfill, the pre qualifications requirement inasmuch as they did not submit the work completion certificate submission whereof with the application was a must requirement among others. Therefore in view of the above apparent anomaly the respondents can hardly justify their stand that since petitioner did not fulfill the pre-qualification requirements hence the tender form was not issued to him. Therefore in view of the above apparent anomaly the respondents can hardly justify their stand that since petitioner did not fulfill the pre-qualification requirements hence the tender form was not issued to him. The facts and circumstances noticed herein above would clearly show that respondents were biased against the petitioner in the non-issuance of tender form to him. They found out some fault with the petitioner's application for not issuing the tender form to them. This clearly shows that respondents did not act fairly and properly in the distribution of public properties. 3. In view of that has been said above it is directed that the Executive Engineer, respondent No. 4 shall pass orders on the petitioner's application dated 2nd November, .1998, a copy of which has been filed with the writ petition a Annexure E within one month from the date of service of a copy of this order on him. It is further directed that in case the Executive Engineer is not agreeable to issue the tender form to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is not qualified, he shall also not consider the tender forms submitted by M/s Electro Dynamics a Firm and M/s Electro kings whose names figure at SI Nos. 7 and 8 of Annexure II to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. It will be open to the respondents to issue fresh notice for inviting applications to attract more competitive contractors if it is so required. With the above direction this writ petition is allowed.