Calcutta High Court
M/S Innovatiview India Limited vs The Chief Electoral Officer on 17 March, 2026
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
IN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER PASSED IN
ITS CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
BEFORE :-
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
&
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
A.P.O.T. No. 41 of 2026
with
I.A. G.A. No. 1 of 2026
&
I.A G.A No. 2 of 2026
M/s Innovatiview India Limited
vs.
The Chief Electoral Officer,
West Bengal, Election Commission of India and Anr.
For the Appellant : Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Dhananjay Nayak, Adv.
Mr. Anuj Saxena, Adv.
Mr. Anuj Ruhela, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Sardar, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Anamika Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Naman Choudhury, Adv.
Mr. Ghanshyam Pandey, Adv.
Judgment Reserved on : 10.03.2026
Judgment Delivered on : 17.03.2026
Judgment Uploaded on : 17.03.2026
2
Shampa Sarkar, J. 2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
1. The appeal arises out of an order dated February 27, 2026 passed by
a learned Single Judge in WPO No. 89 of 2026. The appellant filed the writ
petition challenging the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal
(RFP) for selection of an agency to provide a surveillance system for live web
streaming (audio, video record, viewing CCTV cameras and other
surveillance) at the general election to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly,
2026. The RFP was issued from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, West
Bengal. The appellant prayed for setting aside of the RPF dated February 9,
2026, an order restraining the respondent authorities from continuing with
the said RFP and a further order directing the respondents to reconsider,
review and suitably modify the eligibility criteria contained in sub-clause 4
of Clause 4 of the RFP.
2. According to the appellant, there were gross irregularities in the terms
and conditions. Not only were the terms and conditions unreasonable and
irrational, but they were also anti-competitive. Clubbing of separate
experience criteria, namely, three years’ experience in execution of orders
relating to live election web streaming cumulatively totalling to not less than
1,30,000 cameras for web streaming at polling stations and at least 3,000
CCTV cameras in counting centres, as also, experience in executing order in
respect of vehicles fitted with GPS tracking system was unreasonable and
did not have any rational nexus with the objects ought to be achieved.
3. Mr. Lekhi, learned senior Advocate for the appellant submitted that,
the above experience criteria created an artificial distinction, thereby
excluding the appellant from the process. Any bidder who had executed live
3
election web streaming from polling stations would always have the capacity
2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
and capability to commission, install and operate CCTV cameras at the
counting halls/booths. An additional criteria with regard to three years of
experience in installation of at least 3000 CCTV cameras in counting
centres, need not have been specified under sub-clause 4(a) of the eligibility
criteria. Learned Senior Advocate relied on a corrigendum issued by the
state of Kerala in respect of a similar RFP for the General Election to the
Kerala Legislative Assembly, 2026 and submitted that, initially a similar
provision with regard to experience in executing live web streaming
including experience CCTV cameras for counting centres in a single work
order, had been incorporated in the RFP. The requirement of experience in
CCTV cameras at the counting centres had been done away with. If the
Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Kerala could do away with such
requirement of experience in installation and operation of CCTV cameras for
the purpose of counting, it would demonstrate that such experience was not
essential and a bidder who had an experience in live web streaming of the
election from multiple polling stations, would have the capability to cover
the counting process by operationalizing CCTV cameras.
4. He next submitted that, commissioning and installation of CCTV
cameras and the storage of the data were ancillary to the main work of live
streaming of the election process. It was a subset of the main criteria of
experience in live web streaming of the election process from the polling
stations. As such a separate level of experience was not required.
5. The appellant had ample experience in webcasting poll proceedings in
another state. However, such lack of experience of dealing with CCTV
cameras at the counting halls would not render the appellant ineligible to
4
execute the work. Artificial bifurcation of experience between polling stations
2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
and counting centres served no functional purpose and was introduced
solely to narrow the number of eligible bidders.
6. Learned Advocate next contended that the requirement of experience
of the bidder having executed at least three “full state” orders of live web
streaming of elections on behalf of the Election Commission of India during
the past three years, was also unreasonable, excessive, irrational and
discriminatory. Indian states varied in scale, complexity and operational
requirements. Larger states like Uttar Pradesh had more than one lakh
polling stations, whereas, smaller states like Manipur would have one
thousand polling booths.
7. Treating such fundamentally unequal states as equivalent for the
eligibility purpose, demonstrated non application of mind. The insistence on
full state experience rather than experience across multiple states,
artificially restricted competition and excluded otherwise competent bidders
who possessed extensive experience in diverse and complex jurisdictions.
8. It was urged that, inclusion of experience in execution of three orders
in operating vehicles fitted with GPS for Real Time Vehicle Tracking System
under sub-clause. 5 was unrelated to the work and restrictive. The
requirement of prior experience in executing orders for GPS fitted vehicles
with tracking systems had no rational nexus with the primary object of the
tender, namely, providing a surveillance system for live web streaming for
the general election. GPS tracking and CCTV surveillance were
technologically, operationally and contractually distinct domains. The
clubbing of these two distinct eligibility criteria in a single tender again
operated as an arbitrary restriction in the participation of eligible,
5
competent, capable and experienced bidders. The GPS tracking system
2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
could be awarded by a separate work order and bids could have been invited
from bidders experienced in such work. Otherwise, the bidders should have
been allowed to enter into a back to back arrangement with any entity,
having experience in GPS tracking. The example of Kerala was cited in this
regard as the office of the Chief Electoral Officer allowed the bidders to enter
into a back to back arrangement with a technically competent surveillance
and/or GPS service provider, who was eligible as per the tender conditions,
for execution and support.
9. The corrigendum issued by the Office of Chief Electoral Officer,
Kerala, thereby relaxing the condition of experience in installation of CCTV
cameras in the counting centres and experience in GPS fitted vehicle for real
time vehicle tracking, would indicate that the conditions could be relaxed
and they were not strictly essential for a single bidder to possess. Upon
relaxation of the terms, the field of competition would expand, by allowing
maximum participation of competent and capable bidders. The experience
criteria was arbitrary, unreasonable, exclusionary and violative of the
principle of fair competition.
10. In the writ petition another point was raised with regard to
arbitrariness of clause 7 of the eligibility criteria being punitive, but such
point was not urged either before the learned Single Judge, or before us.
11. Reliance was placed on the decision of Vinishma Technologies Pvt.
Ltd. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2119, in support of the contention that confinement of the
eligibility criteria for participation by a chosen few, would not only be
irrational, but disproportionate to the goal of ensuring effective and efficient
6
execution of the work at the best price, in order to safeguard the interest2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
of
the public ex-chequer.
12. Mr. Lekhi submitted that, the doctrine of level playing field required
that all equally placed bidders must be given equal opportunity to
participate in the tender process. The doctrine was designed to prevent the
state from skewing the market in favour of a few, by including unwarranted
restriction. In the instant case, the tender conditions had the effect of
excluding bidders who would be otherwise financially sound and technically
competent, but may not have experience as required under sub clauses 4(a)
(b) and 5. Requirement of three years’ experience in all the three categories
clubbed together was absurd. According to Mr. Lekhi, the learned Judge
failed to appreciate the irrationality in the terms and conditions, and also
the fact that those were tailor made, only to suit a chosen few.
13. Mr. Lekhi further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate the corrigendum issued in respect of the Kerala election and
erroneously held that only the requirement of experience in CCTV cameras
were reduced numerically. The contentions of the appellant before the
Learned Single Judge was that the eligibility criteria had been substantially
restructured so that, the experience with regard to installation of CCTV
cameras at counting centres would not operate as an exclusionary
qualification. The finding of the learned Single Judge was contrary to the
records. The entire process of reasoning of the learned Judge was vitiated.
14. He further submitted that the learned Judge failed to examine
whether the requirement of experience in installation of 3000 CCTV cameras
in the counting centres had any reasonable nexus to the object sort to be
achieved. Such criteria was subsumed within the first limb of the eligibility
7
under sub-clause 4(a). The learned Single Judge failed to apply the doctrine
2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
of proportionality and did not examine whether the eligibility criteria were
least restrictive.
15. Lastly Mr. Lekhi submitted that under the tender conditions at sub-
clause 7 of the eligibility criteria, a bidder who had been blacklisted by a
government agency during the past three years would not be entitled to
participate, even if the blacklisting was subsequently withdrawn. In the
instant case, SNR EDATAS Private Limited had been blacklisted, but they
were selected in the technical ground.
16. He further submitted that four entities including SNR EDATAS Private
Limited had repeatedly emerged as successful participants under similarly
structured eligibility frameworks and the cumulative design and application
of the impugned conditions effectively confined participation to such
entities. Prayer was made for setting aside the RFP and the order of the
learned Single Judge.
17. Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, learned senior Advocate for the respondents
submitted that the relevance of the tender conditions depended on the scope
of the work. Capacity and capability were distinct and separate from
experience. Experience had a direct nexus with the scope of the work.
18. Referring to the “Introduction”, under clause 2.2 of the RFP, Mr.
Mookherjee submitted that webcasting was also to be carried out from
approximately 108 counting halls. The counting was to be conducted in
large halls totaling to 421.
19. Thus, the requirement of having experience in commissioning,
installing and operating 3000 CCTV cameras at the counting stations was
directly relatable to the scope of the work.
8
20. Referring to the tender documents (Annexure 8 : Financial Bid), Mr.
2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
Mookherjee submitted that 4027 cameras were required for the counting
event, whereas, in Kerala only 1400 cameras would be required. Thus,
relaxation may have been given by Kerala on such experience criteria, but it
was entirely within the domain of the respondents to require experience as
categorized under sub-clause 4(a) as an essential eligibility criteria.
21. He referred to clause 3.2 of the RFP, i.e., the total scope of work and
submitted that under serial No.7 thereof, supply and installation of the IP-
based HD CCTV cameras in counting halls (minimum seven cameras in
each hall) and counting premises (ten cameras) was also within the scope of
the work. He further submitted that, experience in execution of three work
orders with vehicles fitted with cameras for GPS tracking was essential in
case of Flying Squad Vehicles. The vehicles carrying the EVM and VVPATS
ought to be traced, to avoid any kind of interception or tampering.
22. He next submitted that the election process in West Bengal was a
difficult one and a bidder having experience of execution of similar work in
three states would be capable of providing the service as contemplated
under the RFP. Greater the experience of having executed similar kind of
work in three other states, better would be the performance in the election of
2026 in West Bengal.
23. Mr. Mookherjee also submitted that the appellant participated in the
pre-bid meeting and some of the conditions were updated. The appellant
made an incorrect statement in the writ petition that, the respondents sat
quietly over the suggestions made by the appellant. He next submitted that
the pre-bid queries raised by the appellant and the suggestions made, would
indicate that the appellant only asked the respondents to relax or rationalise
9
the experience requirement pertaining to installation of CCTV Cameras2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
at
counting centres.
24. Thus, according to Mr. Mookherjee, the appellant did not treat the
impugned eligibility criteria under sub-clause 4(a) to be either redundant or
not essential. The appellant only wanted a relaxation of the experience of
deploying 400 CCTV Cameras at the counting centres instead of 3000. He
relied on the decision of Airport Authority of India vs Centre for Aviation
Policy, Safety & Research (CAPSR) & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC Online
SC 1334, in support of his contention that the terms and conditions of the
RFP were within the domain of the tenderer or tender making authority and
were not open to judicial scrutiny. The conditions were neither arbitrary, nor
discriminatory or malafide. The tendering authority must have a free hand
in setting the terms of the tender. The bidders intending to participate in a
tender process could not insist upon relaxation of the experience criterion.
25. Heard the learned Senior advocates for the respective parties. The RFP
was published for the following work:-
“Selection of an Agency for providing a Surveillance System for Live Web
Streaming (Audio, Video, Record, Viewing, CCTV & other Services)) for the
General Election to West Bengal Legislative Assembly, 2026.”
26. Clause 2.2 of RFP is quoted below:-
“As per the Election Commission of India’s instructions, all polling stations
i.e. 100% with internet connectivity have to be monitored through
webcasting to ensure oversight of critical activities.
In West Bengal currently, there are 80681 Polling Booths, and the office of
the Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal intends to monitor all Polling
Booths with 1 camera inside and 1 camera outside each booth. However,
02 Cameras may be installed inside critical booths requiring 360 Degree
view of the proceedings inside the booth. These 80681 Polling Stations are
required to be monitored through Webcasting. Moreover, the webcasting is
to be carried out from approximately 108 Counting halls, which will be
conducted in large halls from designated counting counters, besides 1470
10Checkposts, 2646 FSV, approximately 3093 QRT Vehicles across 2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
the
constituency as per the instructions of the Election Commission of India.”
27. Thus, the number of polling stations to be monitored through web
casting are 80681. Web casting are to be carried out from approximately
108 counting halls, to be conducted in large halls from designated counting
centres besides 1470 check posts, 2646 Flying Squad Vehicles and 3093
Quick Response Team vehicles, across the constituency, as per the
instruction of the Election Commission of India. Whereas, in Kerala, the
total number of polling stations are 30471, and the total number of counting
centres are 140. The appellant is aggrieved by the experience criteria in sub
clauses 4(a), 4(b), and 5 under the eligibility criteria. The experience criteria
was challenged before the learned Single Judge on the ground that the same
were tailor made, restrictive of fair competition, denied a level playing field to
eligible bidders. They were unreasonable, arbitrary and irrational.
28. The eligibility criteria with regard to experience which are the subject
matters of challenge in the writ petition are quoted below :-
S No. Basic Eligibility Criteria Documents Required
Requirements
4. Bidders’ a) Bidder should have executed live Copies of the Word
Experience election web streaming (IP based HD order or completion
CCTV cameras-based audio & video certificate for order
from multiple locations) orders cumulatively totaling
cumulatively totaling in not less than in not less than
1,30,000 cameras for web streaming at 1,30,000 cameras for
Polling Stations and at least 3000 web streaming at
CCTV camera in counting in India for Polling Stations and
CE office or any government 3000 cctv counting
Departments/ PSUs and Government cameras in India to
Agencies on behalf of Election be submitted from
Commission of India during the 3 the concerned
financial years from the date of RFP Government
(2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26). Departments PSUs
b) Bidder should have executed at and Government
least 3 full state order of live web Agencies.
streaming (IP based HD CCTV
cameras-based audio & video from
multiple locations) for web streaming
of Elections in different states of India
on behalf of Election Commission of
11
India during 3 years from date of issue Copy of the work 2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
of RFP 92023-24, 2024-25 & 2025-26). order(s) or agreement
from the customer
Consortium, Joint Ventures, UT or Local should be submitted.
Body experience not allowed.
In case of consortium, Only Prime Bidder
experience allowed.
5. Bidders The Bidder should have successfully Copy of the work
Experience executed the following project/s during orders or completion
3 financial years from date of issue of certificates to be
RFP (2023-24, 2024-25 & 2025-26) in submitted
India for CEO office or any Government
Departments/PSUs and Government
Agencies on behalf of Election
Commission of India covering the
following:
a) Minimum 3 orders for check
post surveillance during
Election.
b) Minimum 3 orders for vehicle
fitted with GPS for Real Time
Vehicle Tracking System with
centralized monitoring software
using cloud technology for
chartered/squad vehicle during
election.
Consortium, Joint Ventures, UT
or Local body experience not
allowed. In case of consortium,
Only Prime Bidder experience
allowed.
29. The scope of the work is under clause 3. It has several sub-clauses.
Sub-clause 3.1(A) deals with the details of the Districts, the number of
District Electoral Officers and the number of Returning Officers. Sub-clause
3.1(B) deals with the distribution of the polling stations amongst the
Returning Officers, the District Electoral Officers. The details of the polling
stations and counting centres, from which webcasting should be done are
under clause 3.1(C). The number of Flying Squad Vehicles required are also
stated in details. Therefore, it is evident that the entire project to be
executed and the service to be provided by the selected bidder was of a
larger scale than that of Kerala. The execution of the project in West Bengal
is critical, involving national and public interest.
12
30. In such a situation, if a more stringent provisions with regard 2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
to
experience in not only web streaming from polling stations, but in
installation and operation of CCTV cameras for the surveillance of the
counting centres and storage of data etc., as also, in operating vehicles fitted
with GPS for real time vehicle tracking system are required by the tendering
authority, the same cannot be classified as either unfair, unjust or
irrational.
31. Moreover, considering the variety of the work to be undertaken by the
bidder and the uniqueness of the West Bengal elections, involving past
history of pre-poll and post-poll violence, prescribing a criterion that the
bidders who had executed similar nature of work in three states would be
eligible, is not unreasonable. The scope of the work undoubtedly requires
installation of CCTV cameras. Moreover, the GPS tracking system is
required in the vehicles in order to ensure security, transparency and real
time monitoring during the elections. The GPS devise will allow the election
authorities to track the exact location of the vehicle, whether the same had
taken the designated route, whether the same has been stopped in any
unauthorized location, whether the vehicle reached the polling station or the
strong rooms on time. The risk of interference with the EVM machines can
be reduced.
32. Thus, the respondents acted within their authority in prescribing the
experience criteria under all the three heads of sub-clauses 4(a), 4(b) and 5.
It is neither the appellant’s choice nor the appellant’s prerogative to require
bifurcation of the eligibility criteria or relaxation thereof. It is not for the
appellant to dictate to the tendering authority that, the three experience
criteria should not be clubbed together and/or bidders can be assigned
13
these three works separately as three separate items instead of one, and/or
2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
that the experience of live streaming from polling stations would be
adequate and the experience in CCTV surveillance was not an essential
requirement.
33. Moreover, the appellant did not raise any objection with regard to the
experience required under sub-clause 5 of the eligibility criteria. The
suggestion given was that, the department should relax or rationalize the
experience requirement pertaining to installation of CCTV cameras at the
counting centres. Request was made to allow bidders with at least one work
order involving counting centre deployment or bidders having experience of
deploying a minimum of 400 CCTV cameras at counting centres to
participate in the subject tender. The suggestion given by the appellant is
quoted below :-
S.No RFP Current Clause/Requirement Query/Suggestion for
Page Description change
No.
We respectfully submit
a) Bidder should have executed live that we possess the
election web streaming (IP based requisite experience of
HD CCTV cameras-based audio & deploying more than
video from multiple locations) 1,30,000 cameras for live
orders cumulatively totalling in not web streaming at polling
less than 1,30,000 cameras for stations. In this context,
web streaming at Polling Stations we request the
and at least 3000 CCTV cameras department to relax or
in counting in India for CEO office rationalize the experience
1 31 or any Government Departments / requirement pertaining to
PSUs and Government Agencies on the installation of CCTV
behalf of Election Commission of cameras at counting
India during the 3 financial years centres.
from the date of RFP (2023-24, Further, an agency that
2024-25 and 2025-26). has demonstrably
b) Bidder should have executed at executed live web
least 3 full state orders of live web streaming across tens of
streaming (IP based HD CCTV thousands of polling
cameras-based audio & video from stations has, by
multiple locations) for web definition, established its
streaming of Elections in different technical capability,
states of India on behalf of Election operational scalability,
Commission of India during 3 manpower planning
14
years from date of issue of RFP capacity, and logistical 2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
(2023-24, 2024-25 & 2025-26). maturity. Accordingly, the
Consortium, Joint Ventures, UT or counting-centre
Local body experience not allowed. experience condition does
In case of consortium, only Prime not evaluate a materially
Bidder experience allowed. distinct capability but
instead introduces an
artificial entry barrier that
may disproportionately
limit competition.
Therefore, we request the
department to kindly
allow bidders with at least
one work order involving
counting-centre
deployment, or bidders
having experience of
deploying a minimum of
400 CCTV cameras at
counting centres, to
participate in the tender.
34. The criteria cannot be relaxed by the court on the ground that, the
appellant has the technical and financial capacity to install CCTV cameras
and operate them at the counting halls, even without experience in such
work.
35. Past experience is an important criteria in tender matters. It not only
allows the tendering authority to assess technical capability or the financial
ability, but also reliability, in order to ensure efficiency and timely
completion of the work. The work involves training, logistical support,
setting up of infrastructure throughout West Bengal. Thus, past experience
of having performed similar nature of work in three other states will
definitely throw a light on the reliability and performance of a bidder. Timely
completion of prior contracts, whether there were breaches and penalties
imposed, are relevant factors. The project requires organizational
infrastructure, man power, technical staff, financial and operational
capacity and capability to train the Returning Officers, Electoral Registration
15
Officers, District Election Officer. Thus, greater amount of experience, with
2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
stricter conditions, than usual, cannot be held to be arbitrary, considering
the object sought to be achieved i.e. free, fair and peaceful elections in West
Bengal. Moreover, the scope of the work is based on the instructions from
the Election Commission of India.
36. The appellant did not deny that experience in installation and
operation of CCTV cameras at the counting centres, was essential. Only,
relaxation of the criteria to experience in deployment of 400 cameras in one
work order was requested. It was up to the authority whether to accept such
request or not.. Past experience provides an objective criteria to evaluate
bidders. It helps in selection and guarantees that the tender process
remains free and transparent. The tendering authorities have discretion to
stipulate the eligibility criteria, as long as the conditions are reasonable and
not arbitrary. An instance of an arbitrary condition would be when
experience in an unrelated field is prescribed by the authorities and the
requirements do not have a reasonable nexus with the object of the tender.
37. The scope of the work and the tasks as per the RFP are prescribed
under clause 3.3 of the tender document based on the latest guidelines of
the Election Commission of India.
38. Task 1 deals with the hosting of web based streaming software. The
key features of the software have been enumerated in great details, under
sub-clauses 1 to 25 thereof.
39. Task 2 prescribes live streaming and recording of the polling at polling
stations, counting centres, Flying Squad Vehicles, Check posts and other
sensitive locations including the vehicles carrying EVMs and VVPAT
16
machines. The details of the task have been enumerated under sub-clauses
2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
1 to 32 thereof.
40. Clause 22 thereunder provides that the successful bidder has to
provide suitable manpower for live web streaming and CCTV recording for
the complete duration of the poll event, as specified by the Chief Electoral
Officer/District Election Officer.
41. Task 3 provides for the recording of the counting process. Sub-clauses
1 to 9 thereunder clarifies the nature of the work under the task. The same
are quoted below :-
“1. The Bidder has to supply and install the IP-based HD CCTV cameras, as
per the minimum specification in the identified counting centres. The IP-based
HD CCTV camera should have the facility for local recording, with a minimum
of 3-megapixel camera resolution. The camera should have night vision
capability, a wide angle with 30/170 degrees coverage. The camera should
have the capability of 10x zooming. The camera should have a minimum
illumination of .05 lux.
2. The camera should support 16-4096 kbps code rate, support constant bit
rate/variable frame rate of up to 30 fps. Image control: Backlight compression,
automatic white balance, 3D digital noise reduction, the display should be
supported in 1920×1080.
3. A pre-determined list of locations where the counting process will happen
shall be shared with the Bidder.
4. All the items for Task 1 are required to be adhered to as applicable.
5. Number of locations for audio video recording: 421 Halls $ 408 Counting
Centres421 Halls in 108 Counting Centres.
6. The Bidder shall supply the following IP-based HD CCTV cameras as per the
specifications given in the RFP at each counting center location as per the
breakups:
a. At Counting Centre 7nos. of Cameras per hall
b. At Counting Premises 10 nos. Cameras per premises
for other purposes.
17
7. These cameras should support full HD recording. These cameras will 2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
be owned and operated by the Bidder and shall be taken back at the
end of the assignment.
8. Description and make/model of these cameras should be provided in
the proposal.
9. Number of Days required for recording at each location : 1.”
42. Task 4 requires setting up of help centre and deployment of
manpower.
43. Task 5 deals with the development of training material.
44. The roles and responsibilities of the bidder under Clause 3.6.1 are
quoted below:-
“3.6 Roles and Responsibilities
3.6.1 Bidder
1. Bidder shall be responsible for turnkey implementation of the project.
2. Prepare a Project Plan.
3. Deliver services & deliverables as per the contract terms & conditions.
4. Conduct of live run to see that the web streaming from the identified
locations goes through smoothly without any bottlenecks on the days of
particular event (Polling/ Counting/FSV/ Checkpost).
5. The Bidder is required to ensure the live streaming and recording of
poll process, check post, FSV and at the identified Polling Stations and
counting process at the Counting Centers.
6. Supply and Installation of required equipment for all the events
assigned to Bidder.
7. Establishment of the centralized Help desk to manage and resolve the
complaints/issues coming during the execution of the events.
8. Conduct of trial runs to ensure that the web streaming from the
identified locations goes through smoothly without any bottlenecks and
rectification of the same where necessary.
9. The Bidder is required to have at least two (2) trial run of the audio/
video streaming and recording to ensure availability of network,
concurrency, load balancing by server and technical support of each event
assigned to him.
18
10. The Bidder will provide the Internet Connectivity of sufficient
2026:CHC-OS:92-DBbandwidth at the Control Room at CEO office to monitor/view all the
events (FSVs/Polling/Counting/) etc.
11. Training of BLOs/ Technical Assistants regarding installation,
troubleshooting of web streaming equipment, configuration of web
streaming software for the purpose of monitoring/ viewing the live
streaming.
12. The Bidder shall provide training to the officials of CEO Office and
district administration regarding the process of viewing and monitoring
the live stream and report generation.
13. The Bidder is required to ensure that Servers with necessary system
software licenses, sufficient storage capacity and internet bandwidth,
shall be provided in a secured cloud environment / Data Centre.
14. The Bidder will host the streaming of all Polling Stations / Counting
Centers on the server on public domain with user credentials.
15. The Streaming Server shall serve the officers at ECI, CEO, DEOS,
ROs, AROs, BLOS levels as required.
16. Bidder shall ensure that BLO should have facility to view his/her own
Polling Station.
17. Provide web link details for each event to view web streaming
18.Provide reports of live video streams with downtime/uptime of each
event up to the level of event. (State/District/Assembly/Polling
Stations/FSV/ Checkpost
Team wise).
19. Submit reports as and when required and asked for. Prepare reports
to assist in the process of monitoring and execution.
20. Bidder may withdraw supplied equipment after completion of event
once approval is granted by CEO.
21. On completion of the Election Process, handing over of the
transmitted data to the Client along with the software in a suitable
backup device to view the same as and when required.
22. Shall be liable and / or responsible for the compliance of all Statutory
provisions and especially those relating to labour laws in respect of this
contract.
23. Bidder shall maintain warehouse for storage of equipment / hardware
to be used in any event.”
19
45. It also appears that the bidder is responsible for supply, installation
2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
and commissioning of all materials. Control centres are to set up and the
bidder is required to assist the Chief Electoral Officer, District Electoral
Officer, Returning Officer and Nodal Officers in setting up of such control
centres at their offices. On the day of the polling/ counting/ surveillance,
the live streaming data (video and audio) are to be transmitted in a secured
manner to the server, simultaneously from all strong room/ polling
stations/ counting centres/ flying squad vehicles and further the stream
shall be viewed at the control centre in multiple frames or individually
within the grid/views as required by the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer,
District Electoral Officer, Returning Officer and Nodal Officer and Assistant
Returning Officer for the complete duration of the event. Thus, considering
the specific and critical nature of the work, it was not for the writ court to
enquire as to whether the installation and commission of the CCTV cameras
in the counting halls involved a similar technology required for live election
web streaming from multiple polling stations, or not. Whether experience in
live streaming of the election process from the polling stations would be
adequate and bidders who did not have adequate experience with regard to
CCTV surveillance in the counting centres would be equally competent to
execute the project, was not to be decided by the writ court.
46. It is also not for the writ court to decide whether the works could be
bifurcated on the basis of the technology required under each category, i.e.,
live streaming of the entire election process from the polling stations, the
streaming from the counting centres, CCTV surveillance at the counting
centres and real time vehicle tracking system with GPS fitted vehicles, to be
monitored with centralised monitoring software using cloud technology. The
20
conditions cannot be said to be tailor made and favouring a particular
2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
bidder or class of bidders. Bidders from all over India could participate and
four bidders were successful. The allegation of favouritism and mala fide
intention has not been substantiated in the writ petition. Some illustrations
have been given in ground No. V of the Memorandum of Appeal, which were
not a part of the writ petition. The scope of appeal cannot be widened.
47. The respondents, as the tendering authority, have the freedom in such
commercial decisions. Courts cannot substitute their views only because the
conditions appear to be unwise or harsh. The decision in Vinishma
Technologies Private Limited vs State of Chattisgarh and Anr. reported
in 2025 SCC Online SC 2119, does not apply in the facts of this case
inasmuch as, the condition imposed was a restriction in
participation/experience and not an eligibility criteria. The condition is
quoted below:-
“13. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the
record. For the facility of reference the impugned tender condition is
extracted below:
“(4) Past Performance Restriction: Bidders must have supplied sports
goods worth at least Rs. 6.00 crores (cumulative) to State Government
agencies of Chattisgarh in the last three financial years (2021-22,
2022-23, 2023-24 or 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25).”
48. The Apex Court held that the condition was a restrictive one and
violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The doctrine of level playing
field required that all equally placed competitors must be given an equal
opportunity to participate in the trade and commerce. In the case before the
Hon’ble Apex Court, the tender condition had the effect of excluding bidders
who were otherwise financially sound and technically competent and had
experience, but did not supply sports goods to the state government
agencies of Chhattisgarh in the past three years. Thus, the competition was
21
restricted to only those persons who had supplied goods to the state
2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
government agencies at Chhattisgarh, thereby, ousting the competition from
all other states. This restriction was found to be not only irrational, but
disproportionate to the goal sought to be achieved through the tender
process. With regard to the selection of SNR EDATAS Pvt. Ltd. Mr.
Mookherjee submitted that the order of blacklisting had been stayed, but
Mr. Lekhi has pointed out the eligibility criteria which provides that even if
the order of blacklisting had been subsequently revoked or set aside, the
said candidate could not be allowed to participate in the tender. However,
such issue was not before the learned Single Judge and cannot be raised for
the first time in appeal, especially because SNR EDATAS Pvt. Ltd. is not a
party to the proceeding and this is a fresh cause of action. The appellant can
challenge the selection of the bidders at the technical and financial round,
before the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage in accordance with
law. Such ground was beyond the scope of the writ petition, and
consequently not answered in the appeal. The challenge in the writ petition
was restricted to the irrationality, arbitrariness and unreasonableness in the
eligibility criteria and the scope of the appeal is also restricted to the above
challenge.
49. In the decision of Airport Authority of India vs Centre for Aviation
Policy, Safety & Research (CAPSR) & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC Online
SC 1334, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, as per the settled position of
law, the terms and conditions of the NIT were within the domain of the
tenderer or the tender making authority and not open to judicial review
unless they were arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. In the matter of
formulating conditions of a tender document and in awarding a contract,
22
greater latitude should be given to the authorities, unless the action of the
2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
tendering authority was found to be either malicious or in misuse of
statutory powers.
50. The Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by
the authority because it feels that other terms would have been fair, wise
and logical.
51. In M/s Michigan Rubber (I) Ltd. vs State of Karnataka and Ors.
reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that unless
it can be substantiated that the authority acted whimsically or with ulterior
motive, the procedure adopted cannot be said to be unfair or violative or
Article 14. Paragraph 23 is quoted below:-
“23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge: (a) The
basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and
non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair
play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the
extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not
whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the
bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into
consideration the national priorities;
(b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of
the executive and the courts hardly have any role to play in this
process except for striking down such action of the executive as is
proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in
conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as
awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the
interference by courts is very limited;
(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and
awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the
State authorities unless the action of the tendering authority is found
to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by
courts is not warranted;
(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid
down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources
to successfully execute the work; and
(e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in
public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by court
is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to
carry on business with the Government.”
23
52. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651,2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
it
was emphasized that invitation to tender would not be open to judicial
scrutiny because such invitation was in the realm of contract. Paragraph 94
is quoted below:-
“94.(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative
action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the
manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative
decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will
be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise,
which itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial
scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a
fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative
body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative
sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the
application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its
other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not
affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on
the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted
expenditure.”
53. The courts must proceed with great caution while exercising its
discretionary powers and should exercise these powers only in furtherance
of public interest and not merely on a legal point being attempted to be
made out. By way of judicial review, the court cannot examine details of the
terms of the notice inviting tender and the court’s interference must be
minimal.
54. Normally, the courts must exercise judicial restraint unless illegality
or arbitrariness on the part of the tendering authority is apparent on the
face of the record. Evaluation of tenders and awarding contracts are
essentially commercial functions and principles of equity and natural justice
stay at a distance.
24
55. The threshold of mala fide intention to favour someone 2026:CHC-OS:92-DB
or
arbitrariness, illegality, irrationality and perversity, must be met before the
constitutional court can interfere with the eligibility criteria.
56. Unless there is overwhelming public interest involved, the courts
should not interfere with the terms and conditions of a contract, especially
the eligibility criteria, which requires past experience. The learned Single
Judge rightly held that, although, the appellant had made a specific
allegation of tailor-made conditions, the appellant failed to disclose the
name or names of the intending bidders who would be favoured with the
contract in view of such alleged restrictive provisions.
57. The learned Single Judge was correct in holding that the tendering
authority must have a free hand in setting up the terms of the tender and
courts cannot interfere unless the terms and conditions are either arbitrary,
discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias.
58. Under such circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.
59. G.A No.1 of 2026 is an application for stay of the operation of the
judgment and order dated 27.02.2026 passed in W.P.O No. 89 of 2026 and
the same is disposed of along with this appeal.
60. G.A 2 was filed in this appeal with the prayer of impleading Brihaspati
Technologies Limited, Vmukti Solutions Private Limited and SNREDATAS
Private Limited as respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 in A.P.O.T 41 of 2026. This
application was not moved. The learned Advocate for the appellant
proceeded with the hearing of the appeal on merits. In any event, addition of
these entities in the appeal for the first time will not be the proper
procedure. We have already held that any challenge to the selection of the
entities sought to be impleaded would be a fresh cause of action and can be
25
raised at the appropriate stage as per law. Accordingly G.A 2 of 20262026:CHC-OS:92-DB
is
disposed of.
61. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon fulfilment of requisite formalities.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
I Agree.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)
Later
62. Learned Advocate for the appellant prayed for stay of the judgment
and order. The prayer was considered and rejected.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
I Agree.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)
[ad_1]
Source link
