As per case facts, the petitioners challenged a tender for a surveillance system, alleging their technical bid was unfairly rejected despite meeting experience criteria. They claimed that other respondents, who ...
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao
WPA No. 6237 of 2026
I-Net Secure Labs Private Limited & Anr.
Versus
Election Commission of India & Ors.
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anubhav Sinha
Mr. Sumanta Biswas
Mr. Bikash Shaw
Mr. Sk. Saad Nafisol Islam
.....For the petitioners.
Mr. Soumendra Nath Mookherjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Anamika Pandey
Mr. Naman Choudhury
Mr. Ghanshyam Pandey
.....For the respondent no. 1.
Mr. Anirban Ray, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Paritosh Sinha
Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay
2
Mr. Saubhik Chowdhury
Ms. Suchisattwa Mallick
.....For the respondent no. 4.
Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury
Ms. Sanjukta Dutta
Mr. Shreyan Bhattacharyya
.....For the respondent no. 5.
Ms. Vineeta Meharia, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Amit Meharia
Ms. Paramita Banerjee
Mr. Rohan Raj
Mr. Tamoghna Chattopadhyay
.....For the respondent no. 6.
Hearing Concluded On : 20.03.2026
Judgment On : 25.03.2026
Krishna Rao, J.:
1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for setting
aside the Request For Proposal (RFP) for selection of an Agency for
providing a Surveillance System for Live Web Streaming (Audio, Video,
Record, Viewing, CCTV and other Services) for the General Election to
West Bengal Legislative Assembly, 2026. Subsequently by way of
supplementary affidavit, the petitioners pray for the same relaxation
accorded to the added respondents by allowing the petitioners to
participate in the RFP dated 9
th February, 2026 for West Bengal
Assembly Election, 2026 and not pressed prayer (b) of the writ petition.
3
2. The respondent no.2 issued a tender in the online portal of the E-
procurement System of the Government of West Bengal of the above
mentioned work dated 9
th February, 2026. The petitioner company has
participated in the said tender process.
3. The petitioners are aggrieved with Clause 4(a) and 4(b) of the Eligibility
Criteria which reads as follows:
4.
Bidder’s
Experience
a) Bidder should have executed
live election web streaming (IP
based HD CCTV cameras-based
audio & video from multiple
locations) orders cumulatively
totaling in not less than 1,30,000
cameras for web streaming at
Polling Stations and at least 3000
CCTV camera in counting in India
for CEO office or any Government
Departments/ PSUs and
Government Agencies on behalf
of Election Commission of India
during the 3 financial years from
the date of RFP (2023-24, 2024-
25 and 2025-26).
b) Bidder should have executed
at least 3 full state orders of live
web 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 India
during 3 years from date of issue
of RFP (2023-24, 2024-25 &
2025-26).
Consortium, joint Ventures, UT or
Local body experience not
allowed.
In case of consortium, Only Prime
Bidder experience allowed.
Copies of the
Work order or
completion
certificate for
orders
cumulatively
totaling in not
less than
1,30,000
cameras for
web streaming
at Polling
Stations and
3000 cctv
counting
cameras in
India to be
submitted from
the concerned
Government
Departments/
PSUs and
Government
Agencies.
Copy of the
work order(s) or
agreement from
the customer
should be
submitted.
4
4. Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Learned Senior Advocate representing the
petitioners submits that altogether four firms have participated in the
tender process including the petitioners but the respondent authorities
have rejected the technical bid of the petitioner on 28
th February, 2026
as “Technically Not Qualified”.
5. Mr. Mitra submits that the other three firms being the added
respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 are also not having the eligibility criteria but
the respondent authorities have accepted their technical bid. He
submits that the respondent no.4 is not having the experience of three
full state orders of live web streaming during three years i.e. 2023-
2024, 2024-2025 and 2025-2026.
6. Mr. Mitra submits that the respondent no. 5 has submitted experience
of full three State work orders as per Clause 4(b) of the eligibility
criteria out of which one is of State of Tamil Nadu and another two are
Union Territory of Delhi but as per explanation of Clause 4(b),
experience of Union Territory is not applicable, thus the respondent no.
5 is not having eligibility criteria of full three State but the respondents
have accepted the experience certificate of respondent no.5.
7. Mr. Mitra submits that the respondent no.5 has submitted experience
certificate in respect of Clause 4(a) and shown that the respondent no.
5 has executed live election web streaming of 2,09,794 cameras out of
which two experience certificate is of Delhi and with respect to Bihar,
the respondent has not submitted any certificate of the said work. He
5
submits that if the number of cameras of Delhi and Bihar is deleted,
total cameras would be less than 1,30,000/- but even the respondent
authorities have accepted the tender of the respondent no.5.
8. Mr. Mitra submits that the respondent no. 6 has provided the
experience certificate of 34634 cameras provided to the office of the
Chief Electoral Officer at Bihar but no certificate is submitted as
provided in the said Cause even then the respondents have considered
the tender submitted by the respondent no. 6. He further submits that
if 34634 cameras is deleted, the total number of cameras will be less
than 1,30,000/-.
9. Mr. Mitra submits that the respondent no.6 has submitted experience
certificate as per Clause 4(b) of the eligibility criteria of the work
executed in the State of Mizoram and Andhra Pradesh. He has pointed
out that as per the experience certificate of State of Mizoram, the
respondent no.6 has completed only 60% of the work though as per
conditions the bidder has to complete 100% work. He further submits
that with respect to the works executed at Andhra Pradesh, the
respondent no. 6 has only executed the said work in Andhra Pradesh
Legislative Council and not full state but the respondents have
accepted the tender documents of the respondent no.6.
10. Mr. Mitra submits that the petitioners have submitted documents that
the petitioners are having the experience of live streaming web camera
for more than 1,30,000/-. He submits that as per documents
6
submitted by the petitioners with respect to total live streaming web
camera is 1,42,138 and if cameras of Puducherry and Daman is deleted
then also it will be more than 1,30,000/- but the respondents have not
considered the documents submitted by the petitioners.
11. Mr. Mitra submits that as regard to the criteria of 4(b) is concern, the
petitioners have submitted the work experience certificate of the State
of Kerala, Puducherry and Daman but have not considered the same
though the respondent authorities have considered the certificate of the
private respondents with respect of NCT Delhi.
12. Mr. Mitra submits that in Clause 24(a) of the tender documents, it is
mentioned that the respondent authorities reserved their right to award
the work order to more than one bidder that matches L1 rate and meets
the required technical criteria, in that case, the respondents would
have been considered the case of the petitioners as the rate quoted by
the petitioners, is matches with the L1.
13. Mr. Mitra relied upon the judgment in the case of Banshidhar
Construction Private Limited Vs. Bharat Cooking Coal Limited
and Others reported in (2024) 10 SCC 273 and submits that if the
Court finds that the decision taken by the respondents is grossly
arbitrary, illegal, discriminative and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, the Court can interfere with the said decision of
the authorities.
7
14. Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Learned Senior Advocate representing the
Election Commission of India submits that the writ petition is not
maintainable as the petitioners have suppressed the material facts in
writ petition. He submits that before participation in the tender process
a pre-bid meeting was held on 16
th February, 2026 in the office of the
Chief Electoral Officer and suggested for inclusion of Union Territory in
Clause 4(b) and deletion of Union Territory in explanation of Clause
4(b). He submits that the suggestion of the petitioners was not
considered by including Union Territory in Clause 4(b) and deleting
Union Territory explanation Clause of 4(b). He submits that the
petitioners have suppressed the said fact in the writ petition. He
submits that as per Clause 4 of the RFP, the interpretation of the
clauses by the Chief Electoral Officer shall be final and binding on the
bidder.
15. Mr. Mukherjee submits that inspite of having the knowledge that the
petitioners are not having experience in full three States and experience
of Union Territory will not be considered as experience. He submits that
as per Request for Proposal, the date of uploading of Technical Bid is
24
th February, 2026 and opening of Financial Bid is 26
th February,
2026. The technical bid of the petitioners was rejected on 28
th
February, 2026 but the petitioners have filed the present writ petition
on 11
th March, 2026 and on 13
th March, 2026, work orders have
already issued in favour of the respondent nos. 4 to 6.
8
16. Mr. Mukherjee submits that after pre-bid meeting, the respondent
authorities have issued corrigendum to the e-Tender notice on 20
th
February, 2026 but the petitioners have not challenged the said
corrigendum.
17. Mr. Mukherjee relied upon Article 239AA of the Constitution of India
and submits that by way of sixty-ninth amendment on 1
st February,
1992, a Special Provision with respect to Delhi is incorporated and a
Legislative Assembly is declared. He submits that after insertion of
Article 239AA of the Constitution of India, the National Capital Territory
of Delhi is not similar to other Union Territories.
18. Mr. Mukherjee submits that Clause 4 of Article 239AA of the
Constitution of India provides that there shall be a Council of Ministers
consisting of not more than ten percent of the total number of members
in the Legislative Assembly, with the Chief Minister at the head to aid
and advise the Lieutenant Governor in the exercise of his functions in
relation to matters with respect to which the Legislative Assembly has
power to make laws, except in so far as he is, by or under any law,
required to act in his discretion. He submits that being the situation
that the National Capital Territory of Delhi is not similar to the other
Union Territories and is deemed to be the State, thus the authorities
have considered the experiences of the private respondents executed at
Delhi as State.
9
19. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment in the
case of Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Union of India reported in
(2023) 9 SCC 1.
20. Mr. Mukherjee submits that by way of Corrigendum dated 20
th
February, 2026, is amended by Clause 4(b) deleting the word “different”
States of India and incorporated the figure “3” States of India but UT is
not deleted. He submits that the petitioners have not disclosed all
documents of the respondent no. 5 with respect to the work executed in
Bihar election. He submits that before the year 2025 in none of the
States installed 100% live streaming web camera at the time of election.
In the present case, the authorities have considered the experience
certificate as completion of 100% work to the total live streaming
camera installed in the said State, it might be in the said state only
50% or 60% cameras were installed for election purpose.
21. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the authorities have already completed the
tender process and work orders have already been issued in favour of
the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6.
22. Mr. Anirban Ray, Learned Senior Advocate representing the respondent
no.4 by adopting the submissions of Mr. Mukherjee submits that once
the petitioners have participated in the tender process and it could not
succeed in the said tender process, now the petitioners cannot
challenge the tender process.
10
23. Mr. Ray by pointing out the statement made in paragraphs 12(d), 14
and 15 of the writ petition submits that the petitioners after knowing
the terms and conditions of the tender document, have participated in
the tender and now the same terms have been challenged in the
present writ petition. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon
the judgment in the case of National High Speed Rail Corporation
Limited Vs. Montecarlo Limited and Another reported in (2022) 6
SCC 401.
24. Mr. Ray submits that the respondent no.4 has submitted experience
certificate and work order for the work of installation of 1,30,000
cameras for web streaming at polling stations and 3000 cameras for
counting during three years in Lok Sabha Election 2024 of Punjab,
State Assembly election of Tripura, Lok Sabha election of Karnataka
and General Lok Sabha election of Nagaland, Lok Sabha election of
Maharashtra, Lok Sabha election of Meghalaya, Madhya Pradesh and
Uttarakhand.
25. Mr. Ray submits that on completion of tender process and acceptance
of the tender of the petitioners as L1 work order has also issued in
favour of the petitioners. Mr. Ray in support of his submissions, has
relied upon the judgment in the case of Tata Motors Limited Vs.
Brihan Mumbai Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking
(Best) and Others reported in (2023) 19 SCC 1 and submits that
power of judicial review in the matter as to tenders or award of
contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind that
11
evaluations of tenders and awarding of contracts are essentially
commercial functions and principles of equity and natural justice stay
at a distance in such matters. If the decision relating to award of
contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not interfere
by exercising powers of judicial review even, if a procedural aberration
or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer is made out. He also
relied upon the judgment in the case of Subir Ghosh Vs. State of
West Bengal and Others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 2213
and submits that if a prospective bidder finds the terms of the tender
documents to be unfair or illegal and challenges the same, but such
challenge has to be before the time to put in the bids is closed. At any
rate, if a bid is made and the bid is thrown out on an illegal or unfair
ground contained in the tender documents, even then, a challenge can
be fashioned.
26. Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhary, Learned Senior Advocate representing the
respondent no.5 by adopting the submissions of Mr. Mukherjee
submits that Delhi is different from other Union Territories having
Assembly deemed to be the State, thus the respondents have rightly
considered the experience certificate of the respondent no. 5. He
submits that the respondent no.5 has given the details of the
experiences with regard to 1,30,000/- live streaming cameras and 3000
CCTV cameras in counting stations. He submitted that the petitioners
have executed work with the respondent no.4 in the state of Andhra
Pradesh but the petitioners have obtained certificate in its name.
12
27. Mr. Choudhury relied upon the experience certificate dated 6
th
December, 2024, issued by the Chief Electoral Officer, Andhra Pradesh
wherein it certified that the respondent no.5 along with the petitioners,
have been awarded with the work of live streaming of poll proceeding
wherein both have used 44,790 cameras in the Andhra Pradesh Lok
Sabha Legislative Election 2024 but the petitioner has shown his
experience of 44,790 cameras. He submits that the tender process is
over and work order is also issued to the respondent no.5.
28. Ms. Vineeta Meharia, Learned Senior Advocate representing the
respondent no.6 submits that the respondent no.6 has submitted
required experience certificate to prove that the respondent no.6 has
executed work by providing 1,69,336 of live streaming cameras at the
Polling stations at Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Assam and Telangana
during the last three years.
29. Ms. Meharia submits that as regard to Clause 4(b), the respondent no.6
has submitted work completion certificate of Assam, Chandigarh,
Mizoram and Andhra Pradesh. She submits that before 2025 i.e. Bihar
Election in nowhere 100 % election was conducted under the CCTV
surveillance. She has relied upon the instructions of the Election
Commission wherein it was decided that arrangements of web casting
shall be done in all critical polling stations and all polling stations in
venerable areas or at least 50% of the total polling stations.
13
30. Ms. Meharia submits that as none of the state before 2025 have used
100% CCTV surveillance, thus if only in a state if 50 % CCTV
surveillance is provided, the same is taken as 100% of the said State.
She further submits that the documents submitted by the respondent
no.6 was accepted by the authorities and work order has also issued in
favour of the respondent no.6.
31. Though the petitioner in prayer (b) of the writ application has
challenged the Request For Proposal being No. CEOWB/2026/E-
TENDER/002/ SURVEILANCE SYSTEM LIVE WEB STREAMING dated
9
th February, 2026 and prayed for setting aside the said RFP but during
reply, the Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Learned Senior Advocate with Mr.
Anubhav Sinha Learned Advocate representing the petitioners not
pressed prayer (b) of the writ petition and prayed for a direction upon
the respondent authorities for providing equal benefits to that of the
respondent nos. 5 and 6 as the petitioners are also having the similar
experience to that of the respondent nos. 5 and 6.
32. The petitioners have submitted the details of experience with respect to
Clause 4(a) of the Eligibility Criteria which reads as follows:
Bidders Experience (S.no : 4 a- Execute Live Web streaming
orders cumulative of not less than 1,30,000 CCTV Camera in
Polling Station)
S.
No
Financi
al Year
Project
Name
Name of
concerne
d Govt.
Agency/
Departme
nt/
Governme
nt
Total
Project/
contract
Value in
Rs.
Contrac
t Award
Date
and
Work
completi
on Date
(WCD)
Polling
Camer
a
Count
Page
Number
14
Agencies/
Govt.
aided
agencies
1
FY 23-24
Election
Department-
Webcasting
and related
services for
General
Election to
Parliamenta
ry
Constituenci
es 2024-
State of
Kerala-
work order
Chief
Electoral
Officer &
Secretary
to
Governme
nt, Kerala
1,05,51,
60,222
Order
Dated
28-03-
2024
WCD:
07.08.20
24
28747
139-145
2
FY 23-24
Elections-
Selection of
Agency for
providing a
Surveillance
System
(Live
Webcasting
Streaming
(Audio,
Video,
Record,
Viewing,
CCTV &
other
services) at
various
locations
(Polling
Stations &
Check
posts)
across the
State of
Andhra
Pradesh
OFFICE
OF THE
CHIEF
ELECTOR
AL
OFFICER
ANDHRA
PRADESH
53,94,90
,194.00
Order
Dated:
12-03-
2024
WCD:
19.09.20
25
44790
146-147
3
FY 23-24
Work Order
for
providing a
Surveillance
System
(Live Web
Streaming
(Audio,
Video,
Record,
Viewing,
CCTV &
Office of
Chief
Electoral
Officer,
20,18,51
,260
Order
Dated:
11-10-
2023
12932
148-151
15
other
Services) for
the
Assembly
Election
2023 and
the Lok
Sabha
Election
2024 for the
Madhya
Pradesh
State.
Madhya
Pradesh
WCD: 28-
02-2024
4
FY 24-25
Work order
for
providing a
Surveillance
System
(Live Web
Streaming
(Audio,
Video,
Record,
Viewing
CCTV &
other
Services) for
the
Assembly
Election
2023 and
the Lok
2024 for the
Madhya
Pradesh
State.
Office of
Chief
Electoral
Officer,
Madhya
Pradesh
22,07,36
,470
Order
Dated:
11-10-
2023
WCD: 08-
11-2024
15234
148-152
5
FY 23-24
Webcasting
and related
services for
General
Election to
Karnataka
Legislative
Asssembly-
2023 in
Belagavi
Division –
reg
Office of
Chief
Electoral
Officer,
Karnataka
13,62,00
,781.10
Order
Dated:
06-04-
2023
WCD: 27-
06-2023
8014
153-155
6
FY 23-24
Webcasting
and related
services for
General
Election to
Karnataka
Legislative
Assembly-
Office of
Chief
Electoral
Officer,
Karnataka
12,09,90
,990.40
Order
Dated:
06-04-
2023
6467
156-158
16
2023 in
Kalaburagi
Division-reg
WCD: 27-
06-2023
7
FY 24-25
Live
Webcasting
and
recording of
Maharashtr
a Vidhan
Sabha
Elections
2024” for
Hosting of
the web
based
streaming
software,
Live
streaming
and
recording of
the polling
at Polling
Station, Live
Streaming
and
Recording of
the counting
Process,
setting up
Help Centre
&
Deployment
of
Manpower
and
Developmen
t of Training
Material etc.
in Thane
District of
Maharashtr
a
ITI
LIMITED
(THANE)
9,47,50,
914
Order
Dated:
19-11-
2024
WCD:
19.09.20
25
10504
159-160
Live
Webcasting
and
recording of
Maharashtr
a Vidhan
Sabha
Elections
2024” for
Hosting of
the web
based
streaming
software,
ITI
LIMITED
(NASHIK)
1,94,74,
939.00
Order
Dated:
19-11-
2024
WCD: 20-
6560
161-163
17
8 FY 24-25 Live
streaming
and
recording of
the polling
at Polling
Station,
Distribution
& Collection
Centres,
Live
Streaming
and
Recording,
setting up
Help Centre
&
Deployment
of
Manpower
and
Developmen
t of Training
Material etc.
in Nashik
District of
Maharashtr
a
12-2024
9
FY 24-25
Election
Department-
Bye Election
2024-
Webcasting
and related
services-
State of
Kerala-
Work Order
– reg
Chief
Electoral
Officer &
Secretary
to
Governme
nt
6,90,85,
461
Order
Dated :
30-10-
2024
WCD: 05-
12-2024
2627
164-170
10
FY 23-24
Work order
for the
execution of
Live Web
Streaming
of poll
proceedings
on the
polling day
for the
General
Election to
Lok Sabha
2024 in
Ahmednaga
r District
District
Collector’s
Office,
Ahmednag
ar
67,33,53
6
Order
Dated:
21-03-
2024
WCD:
25.09.
2024
1880
171-174
Work order
18
11
FY 24-25
for the
execution of
Live Web
Streaming
of poll
proceedings
on the
polling day
for the Lok
Sabha
Election
2024 in
Latur
District,
Maharashtr
a
District
Collector
and
District
Election
Officer,
Latur
84,94,63
2
Order
Dated:
12.04.
2024
WCD:
21.05.
2025
1050
175-176
12
FY 24-25
Work order
for the
execution of
Live Web
Streaming
of poll
proceedings
on the
polling day
for the
Vidhan
Sabha
Election
2024 in
Latur
District,
Maharashtr
a
District
Collector
and
District
Election
Officer,
Latur
1,75,61,
089.00
Order
Dated:
23-04-
2024
WCD:
21.05.
2025
1227
177-180
13
FY 24-25
Elections
GELS 2024-
Provision of
live
streaming &
recording of
Prepoll day
and Poll
Day events
at all Polling
Stations in
the UT of
Puducherry
during the
conduct of
GELS 2024-
Issue of
Work Order-
Reg
Governme
nt of
Puducherr
y Elections
Departmen
t
48,59,26
1.24
Order
Dated:
25-03-
2024
WCD: 19-
02-2025
1206
181-184
Webcasting
and related
Services for
Order
19
14
FY 24-25
General
Election to
Lok Sabha-
2024-
Dadar &
Nagar
Haveli and
Daman &
Diu
Joint Chief
Electoral
Officer,
Daman
1,06,09,
980.00
Dated:
29.04.20
24
WCD:
10.05.
2024
900
185-186
Total Number of Web Streaming Cameras Deployed for
Polling
142138
33. He submits that if experience of the petitioners with respect to the work
executed in Puducherry and Daman is excluded even the total number
of web streaming cameras deploying for polling would be 1,40,000/-
which is much higher than the then required quantity.
34. As regard to the experience of Clause 4(b) of the Eligibility Criteria, the
petitioners have submitted the following details which reads as follows:
Bidders Experience (S.no : 4 b- 3 full State web
streaming on Behalf of ECI)
S.
No
Financi
al Year
Project
Name
Name of
concerned
Govt.
Agency/
Department/
Government
Agencies/
Govt. aided
agencies
Total
Project/
contract
Value in
Rs.
Contract
Award
Date and
Work
completion
Date (WCD)
Page
Number
1
FY 23-24
Election
Department-
Webcasting
and related
services for
General
Election to
Parliamenta
ry
Constituenci
es 2024-
Chief
Electoral
Officer &
Secretary to
Government,
Kerala
1,05,51,60,
222
Order Dated
28-03-2024
WCD:
07.08.2024
139-145
20
State of
Kerala -
work order
2
FY 23-24
Elections
GELS 2024-
Provision of
live
streaming &
recording of
Prepoll day
and Poll
Day events
at all Polling
Stations in
the UT of
Puducherry
during the
conduct of
GELS 2024-
Issue of
Work Order-
Reg
Government
of Puducherry
Elections
Department
48,59,261.2
4
Order
Dated: 25-
03-2024
WCD: 19-
02-2025
181-184
3
FY 24-25
Webcasting
and related
Services for
General
Election to
Lok Sabha-
2024-
Dadar &
Nagar
Haveli and
Daman &
Diu
Office of the
Chief
Electoral
Officer &
Secretariat -
Daman
1,06,09,980
.00
Order
Dated: 29-
04-2024
WCD: 10-
05-2024
185-186
35. The respondent no.5 has submitted details of the work executed with
respect to Clause 4(a) of the Eligibility Criteria, which reads as follows:
4. Detail of bidder’s experience with reference to the PQ/Eligibility
Criteria
Sl.
No.
Project
Name
Name of
concerne
d Govt.
Agency/
Departme
nt/
Governme
nt
Agencies/
Govt.
No of
IP
Base
d HD
CCTV
Web
casti
ng
Came
ras
No of
Count
ing
Cente
r
CCTV
Came
ras
Total
Project/
contract
Value in
Rs.
Contra
ct
Award
Date
And
Work
Comple
tion
Date
Releva
nt
Certifi
cates
enclos
ed on
Page
No. of
the PQ
Bid
Releva
nt
Clause
details
as per
Eliegib
ility
Criteri
a
21
aided
agencies.
1
2023-
2024
Installati
on and
Impleme
ntation of
Election
Webcasti
ng of
polling
CCTV
monitorin
g
services
on
Counting
Day and
Recordin
g, Check
Post
activities,
GPS
Operatio
ns, and
related
services
for the
Telanga
na
Assembl
y
Election
s- 2023
in the
state of
Telangan
a
The Chief
Electoral
Officer,
Telangana
18,59
9
1,368
Rs.
26,51,37
,469/-
Assem
bly
Award
Date:
19.10.
2023
Comple
tion
Date:
03.12.
2023
Pg No.
48
As per
Eligibilit
y
Criteria
Clause
No. 4(a)
2
Live Web
Streamin
g of Poll
proceedin
g on the
day of
polling
stations,
to
monitor
Check
post
activities
and
installed
the IP
Chief
Electoral
Officer
Madhya
Pradesh
13,27
6
958
Rs.
20,33,64
,268/-
Award
Date:
11.10.
2023
Comple
tion
Date:
03.12.
2023
Pg
No. 49
22
based
HD CCTV
Camera
through
the wired
connectiv
ity in
counting
hall for
General
Assembl
y
Election-
2023 in
the
State of
Madhya
Pradesh
As per
Eligibil
ity
Criteri
a
Clause
No.
4(a)
3
2024-
2025
Installati
on and
Impleme
ntation of
Election
Webcasti
ng of
polling
CCTV
monitorin
g
services
of
Counting
Day and
Recordin
g, Check
Post
activities,
GPS
Operatio
ns, and
related
services
for the
General
Election
at Lok
Sabha-
2024 in
the state
of
Telanga
na
The Chief
Electoral
Officer,
Telangana
25,72
8
1,062
Rs.
39,75,73
,753/-
Award
Date:
28.03.
2024
Comple
tion
Date:
04.06.
2024
Pg No.
50
23
4
Live Web
Streamin
g of Poll
proceedin
g on the
day of
polling
stations,
to
monitor
Check
post
activities
and
installed
the IP
based
HD CCTV
Camera
through
the wired
connectiv
ity in
counting
hall for
Parliam
entary
General
Election-
2204
Chief
Electoral
officer,
Madhya
Pradesh
15,60
1
1,060
Rs.
24,59,46
,848/-
Award
Date:
11.10.
2023
Comple
tion
Date:
04.06.
2024
Pg No.
51
As per
Eligibil
ity
Criteri
a
Clause
No.
4(a)
5
Live
Webcasti
ng of Poll
proceedin
gs on the
day of
Poll and
the day
of
counting
for the
General
Elections
to Lok
Sabha
2024
Chief
Electoral
Officer &
Principal
Secretary
to
Governme
nt, Tamil
Nadu
46,28
5
4,082
Rs.
45,19,58
,577
Award
Date:
16.03.
2024
Comple
tion
Date:
04.06.
2024
Pg No.
52
6
Installati
on and
Impleme
ntation of
Live Web
Casting
Solution
and
CCTV
monitorin
g
Chief
Electoral
Officer
Delhi
13,72
0
2,136
Rs.
14,70,52
,601/-
Award
Date:
27.03.
2024
Comple
tion
Date:
04.06.
Pg No.
53
24
services
(Audio &
Video
Recordin
g,
Viewing,
CCTV &
Others
services)
in NCT of
Delhi on
poll Day
during
General
Elections
to LOK-
Sabha-
2024.
2024
As per
Eligibil
ity
Criteri
a
Clause
No.
4(a)
7 Installati
on and
Impleme
ntation of
Election
Webcasti
ng and
Queue
Manage
ment
solutions
in polling
Stations
in NCT of
Delhi on
poll Day
during
Legislati
ve
Assembl
y
Election
s- 2025
Chief
Electoral
Officer
Delhi
29,21
5
Rs.
23,96,95
,636/-
Award
Date:
14.12.
2024
Comple
tion
Date:
08.02.
2025
Pg No.
54
8
2025-
2026
Providing
a
Monitorin
g System
(Live Web
Streamin
g (Audio,
Video,
Record,
Viewing,
CCTV &
Chief
Electoral
Officer
Bihar
47,37
0
699
Rs.
40,89,05
,836/-
Award
Date:
15.10.
2025
Comple
tion
Date:
14.11.
2025
Pg No.
55 to
69
25
other
Services)
for
General
Election
to Bihar
Legislativ
e
Assembl
y’ 2025.
Total Cameras
2,09,
794
11,36
5
36. The respondent no.5 has submitted the following details of the work
executed with respect to 4(b) of the Eligibility Criteria, which reads as
follows:
As per Eligibility Criteria
Clause No. 4(b) - 3 Full
State Work orders
No of IP
Based
HD CCTV
Webcasti
ng
Cameras
Total
Project/
contract
Value in
Rs.
Contrac
t Award
Date
and
Work
Complet
ion Date
Relevant
Certifica
tes
enclosed
on Page
No. of
the PQ
Bid
Relevan
t Clause
details
as per
Eliegibi
lity
Criteria
Project Name
Name of
concerne
d Govt.
Agency/
Departm
ent/
Governm
ent
Agencies
/ Govt.
aided
agencies.
1 2024-
2025
Live
Webcasting
of Poll
proceeding
s on the
day of Poll
and the
day of
counting
for the
General
Elections to
Lok
Sabha
2024
Chief
Electoral
Officer &
Principal
Secretary
to
Governme
nt, Tamil
Nadu
46,285
Rs.
45,19,68,
577
Award
Date:
16.03.
2024
Complet
ion
Date:
04.06.20
24
Pg No. 52
As per
Eligibili
ty
Criteria
Clause
No. 4(b)
26
2 Installation
and
Implement
ation of
Live Web
Casting
Solution
and CCTV
monitoring
services
(Audio &
Video
Recording,
Viewing,
CCTV &
Others
Services) in
NCT of
Delhi on
poll day
during
General
Elections to
LOK-
Sabha-
2024.
Chief
Electoral
Officer
Delhi
13,720
Rs.
14,70,52,
601/-
Award
Date:
27.03.
2024
Complet
ion
Date:
04.06.
2024
Pg No. 53
As per
Eligibili
ty
Criteria
Clause
No. 4(b)
3 2025-
2026
Installation
and
Implement
ation of
Election
Webcasting
and Queue
Manageme
nt solutions
in polling
Station in
NCT of
Delhi on
poll day
during
Legislativ
e
Assembly
Elections-
2025
Chief
Electoral
Officer
Delhi
29,215
Rs.
23,96,95,
636/-
Award
Date:
14.12.
2024
Complet
ion
Date:
08.02.
2025
Pg No. 54
37. The respondent no.6 has submitted the following details with respect to
the work executed in terms of Clause 4(a) of the Eligibility Criteria:
27
S.
No
Name of
concerned Govt.
Agency/
Department/ PSU
Project Name Polling
Cameras
Counting
Cameras
Page
Nos
1 Chief Electoral
officer, Assam
Live Web Streaming
work of IP Based
Video Surveillance in
the Polling Stations for
General Elections in
Assam – 2024
31520 0
257
2 Chief Electoral
officer, Assam
Live Web Streaming in
the Polling Station for
Bye Elections in
Assam – 2024
1184 0
261
3 Chief Electoral
Officer,
Andhra Pradesh-
2024
Live Webcasting
Streaming in the
Polling Station &
Check post for Lok
Sabha and AP
Legislative Assembly
Elections 2024
27492 0
264
4 BSNL- Telangana
General Elections to
HoP (Lok Sabha),
2024
Supply, installation
and commissioning of
IP Based Video
surveillance system
including Live
streaming and
recording of the polling
event at all polling
booths, CCTVs for
counting centers,
strong rooms, check
posts and related
Services for Telangana
General Elections to
HoP (Lok Sabha),
2024
20392 1272
(283,285)
5 BSNL – Telangana
Legislative
Assembly Elections
– 2023
Live streaming and
recording of the polling
at polling booths,
CCTVs for counting
centers and related
Services for Telangana
Legislative Assembly
Elections – 2023
19319 1613
290,296
6 ITI Limited,
Chandigarh
Live Webcasting and
Streaming of Events
on Poll Day for the
General Elections to
Lok Sabha 2024 in
Himachal Pradesh
7161 0
292
28
7 Chief Electoral
Officer, Mizoram
Webcasting for the
General Election to the
Lok Sabha, 2024 in
the State of Mizoram
765 0
301
8 AP CEO- MLC
Elections 2025
Providing Surveillance
system (Live
Webcasting Streaming
(Audio, Video, Record,
viewing, CCTV &
Other services at
various locations
(Polling Stations for
Legislative Council.
2124 0
304
9 Office of Chief
Electoral Officer of
Bihar
Providing a Monitoring
System (Live Web
Streaming (Audio,
Video, Record,
Viewing, CCTV &
Other Services) for
General Elections to
Bihar Legislative
Assembly, 2025
34634 355
326
10 Commissioner &
Secretary to the
Govt. of Assam,
Election Department
Video Streaming
commissioning for
each location with PTZ
IP cameras, Internet
connectively at SHQ,
DHQ and Polling
station, Cloud Storage
for live streaming,
local storage for offline
video/ bandwidth
lighting if required
along with requisite
manpower at sites,
call centre facility at
HQ, Network survey,
dashboard, training of
manpower dry test
run etc. as per the
scope and
specifications
mentioned in this RFP
for the Polling Stations
13861 0
353
11 Government of
Telangana
Proceedings of the
Commissioner of
Panchayat Raj and
Rural Employment
Supply, Installation
and Commissioning of
an IP Based Video
Surveillance System,
Including Live
Streaming and
recording of the Polling
and Counting events
at polling booths and
related Services for
Ordinary Elections to
10884 0
356
29
the Gram Panchayats,
2025 in Telangana
State
Total
169336 3240
38. With respect to experience of 4(b) of the Eligibility Criteria, the
respondent no. 6 has submitted the following details:
S.
No
Name of
concerned
Govt.
Agency /
Department/
PSU
Po. Ref. No. Project Name Page
Nos
1 Chief
Electoral
Officer,
Assam 2024
PO. No.
ELE.107/2023/125
Live Web Streaming
work of IP Based Video
Surveillance in the
Polling Stations for
General Elections in
Assam – 2024 PO. No.
ELE. 107/2023/125
359-
362
2 ITI Limited
Chandigarh
Po. No:
ITICHD/MKTG/24-
25/01
Live Webcasting and
Streaming of Events on
Poll Day for the
General Election to Lok
Sabha 2024 in
Himachal Pradesh
Po. No:
ITICHD/MKTG/24-
25/01
363-
366
3 Chief
Electoral
Officer,
Mizoram
Po. No:
D.21019/1/2023-
CEO
Webcasting for the
General Election to the
Lok Sabha, 2024 in the
State of Mizoram Po.
No:
D.21019/1/2023-CEO
367-
369
4 AP CEO–
MLC
Elections
2025
Po. No:
2701992/Elecs.C/
2025
Proving Surveillance
system (Live
Webcasting Streaming
(Audio, Video, Record,
viewing, CCTV & Other
370-
385
30
services at various
locations (Polling
Stations) for the
Biennial Elections to
the AP Legislative
Council, Po. No:
2701992/Elecs.C/
2025
39. Mr. Mookherjee, Learned Senior Advocate representing the respondent
authorities i.e. respondent nos. 1 to 3 submits that there is no
restriction with respect to Union Territories in Clause 4(a) of the
Eligibility Criteria. If the submission of Mr. Mookherjee is taken into
consideration then there is no difficulty to accept the experience of the
petitioners with respect to Puducherry and Daman. The respondents
have accepted the experience of the respondent no.5 with respect to the
same work executed in Delhi twice i.e. in the Lok Sabha Election, 2024
and Assembly Election, 2025 but have not accepted the experience of
the petitioners executed in Puducherry and Daman which are the
Union Territories.
40. Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhuri, Learned Senior Advocate representing the
respondent no.5 submits that the petitioners have relied upon the
experience of 44,790 cameras at Andhra Pradesh during Lok Sabha
Election 2024 but the said work was awarded jointly to the respondent
no.5 and the petitioners. If it is the specific case of the authorities that
explanation of Clause 4(b) is not applicable to Clause 4(a) with respect
to Union Territories, the respondents cannot say that the Consortium
or Joint Venture is applicable in Clause 4(a).
31
41. As regard to the Clause 4(b) of the Eligibility Criteria, the petitioners
have submitted experience of State of Kerala, Union Territory of
Puducherry and Daman. The respondent authorities have not accepted
the experience of the petitioners on the ground that as per explanation
of Clause 4(b) experience of Union Territory will not be allowed.
42. The respondent no.5 has submitted its experience for the work under
Clause 4(b) one from the State of Tamil Nadu and two experience
Certificates from Delhi. The respondent authorities have accepted the
experience of the respondent no.5 of Delhi though Delhi is the Union
Territory. Mr. Mookherjee relied upon Article 239AA of the Constitution
of India and submits that the Union Territory of Delhi is different from
the other Union Territories and having Assembly and deemed to be the
State. Mr. Mookherjee has relied upon the judgment in the case of
Government of NCT of Delhi (supra) and relied upon the paragraphs
14 to 19 of the said judgment which reads as follows:
“C. Interpretation of Article 239-AA : The
2018 Constitution Bench judgment [State (NCT
of Delhi) v. Union of India, (2018) 8 SCC 501]
(a) Delhi : A sui generis model
14. The 2018 Constitution Bench decision
held that NCTD is not similar to other Union
Territories. The decision elucidates the manner in
which the insertion of Article 239-AA accorded a
“sui generis” status to NCTD setting it apart from
other Union Territories. The judgment noted that
the constitutional entrenchment of a Legislative
Assembly, Council of Ministers, and Westminster
style Cabinet System of Government brought into
existence the attributes of a representative form of
Government. As a consequence, the residents of
32
Delhi have been, through their elected
representatives, afforded a voice in the governance
of NCTD, while balancing the national interests of
the Union of India.
15. The majority decision, speaking through
Dipak Misra, C.J. held :
“196. Thus, NDMC [NDMC v. State of
Punjab, (1997) 7 SCC 339] makes it clear as
crystal that all Union Territories under our
constitutional scheme are not on the same
pedestal .…
***
S. Essence of Article 239-AA of the
Constitution
206. It is perceptible that the
constitutional amendment conceives of
conferring special status on Delhi. This has to
be kept in view while interpreting Article 239-
AA. …
207. At the outset, we must declare that
the insertion of Articles 239-AA and 239-AB,
which specifically pertain to NCT of Delhi, is
reflective of the intention of Parliament to
accord Delhi a sui generis status from the
other Union Territories as well as from the
Union Territory of Puducherry to which Article
239-A is singularly applicable as on date. The
same has been authoritatively held by the
majority judgment in NDMC case to the effect
that the NCT of Delhi is a class by itself.
***
209. The exercise of establishing a
democratic and representative form of
Government for NCT of Delhi by insertion of
Articles 239-AA and 239-AB would turn futile
if the Government of Delhi that enjoys the
confidence of the people of Delhi is not able to
usher in policies and laws over which the
Delhi Legislative Assembly has power to
legislate for NCT of Delhi.
33
210. Further, the Statement of Objects
and Reasons for the Constitution (Seventy-
fourth Amendment) Bill, 1991 which was
enacted as the Constitution (Sixty-ninth
Amendment) Act, 1991 also lends support to
our view as it clearly stipulates that in order to
confer a special status upon the National
Capital, arrangements should be incorporated
in the Constitution itself.”
16. The concurring opinion of Chandrachud,
J. emphasised the significance of legislative and
constitutional history in interpreting Article 239-AA.
In that context, the judgment notes :
“383. Having regard to this history and
background, it would be fundamentally
inappropriate to assign to NCT a status similar
to other Union Territories. Article 239-AA(4) is
a special provision which was adopted to
establish a special constitutional arrangement
for the governance of NCT, albeit within the
rubric of Union Territories. In interpreting the
provisions of Article 239-AA, this Court cannot
adopt a blinkered view, which ignores
legislative and constitutional history. While
adopting some of the provisions of the Acts of
1963 and 1966, Parliament in its constituent
capacity omitted some of the other provisions
of the legislative enactments which preceded
the Sixty-ninth Amendment.”
17. Having imparted a purposive
interpretation to Article 239-AA, the judgment
underscores that the governance structure which
Parliament adopted for NCTD is unique and
different from that of other Union Territories. It was
held that the constituent power of Parliament was
exercised “to treat the Government of NCT of Delhi
as a representative form of Government”.
The judgment of the majority held :
“213. … Article 239-A gives discretion to
Parliament to create by law for the Union
Territory of Puducherry a Council of Ministers
and/or a body which may either be wholly
elected or partly elected and partly nominated
34
to perform the functions of a legislature for the
Union Territory of Puducherry.
214. On the other hand, Article 239-AA
clause (2), by using the word “shall”, makes it
mandatory for Parliament to create by law a
Legislative Assembly for the National Capital
Territory of Delhi. Further, sub-clause (a) of
clause (2) declares very categorically that the
Members of the Legislative Assembly of the
National Capital Territory of Delhi shall be
chosen by direct election from the territorial
constituencies in the National Capital Territory
of Delhi. Unlike Article 239-A clause (1)
wherein the body created by Parliament by
law to perform the functions of a legislature for
the Union Territory of Puducherry may either
be wholly elected or partly elected and partly
nominated, there is no such provision in the
context of the Legislative Assembly of NCT of
Delhi as per which Members can be nominated
to the Legislative Assembly. This was a
deliberate design by Parliament.
215. We have highlighted this difference
to underscore and emphasise the intention of
Parliament, while inserting Article 239-AA in
the exercise of its constituent power, to treat
the Legislative Assembly of the National
Capital Territory of Delhi as a set of elected
representatives of the voters of NCT of Delhi
and to treat the Government of NCT of Delhi as
a representative form of Government.
216. The Legislative Assembly is wholly
comprised of elected representatives who are
chosen by direct elections and are sent to
Delhi's Legislative Assembly by the voters of
Delhi. None of the Members of Delhi's
Legislative Assembly are nominated. The
elected representatives and the Council of
Ministers of Delhi, being accountable to the
voters of Delhi, must have the appropriate
powers so as to perform their functions
effectively and efficiently.”
35
18. In his concurring opinion, Chandrachud,
J. also held that NCTD is “special class among
Union Territories”. It was held :
“384. All Union Territories are grouped
together in Part VIII of the Constitution. While
bringing them under the rubric of one
constitutional pairing, there is an
unmistakable distinction created between
them by the Constitution. …
***
388. Delhi presents a special
constitutional status under Article 239-AA.
This is fortified when those provisions are
read in contrast with Articles 239-A and 240.
Article 239-AA does not incorporate the
language or scheme of Article 240(1), which
enables the President to frame Regulations for
peace, progress and good government of the
Union Territories referred to in Article 240(1).
This proviso to Article 240(1) indicates that
once a parliamentary law has been framed,
the President shall not frame Regulations for
Puducherry. In the case of Delhi, Article 239-
AA does not leave the constitution of a
legislature or the Council of Ministers to a law
to be framed by Parliament in future. Article
239-AA mandates that there shall be a
Legislative Assembly for NCT and there shall
be a Council of Ministers, with the function of
tendering aid and advice to the Lieutenant
Governor. That “there shall be” formulation is
indicative of a constitutional mandate.
Bringing into being a Legislative Assembly
and a Council of Ministers for NCT was not
relegated by Parliament (in its constituent
power) to its legislative wisdom at a future
date upon the enactment of enabling
legislation. Clause 7(a) of Article 239-AA
enables Parliament by law to make provisions
to give effect to or to supplement the provisions
contained in that Article. Parliament's power is
to enforce, implement and fortify Article 239-
AA and its defining norms.
389. The above analysis would indicate
that while Part VIII brings together a common
grouping of all Union Territories, the
36
Constitution evidently did not intend to use the
same brush to paint the details of their
position, the institutions of governance
(legislative or executive), the nature of
democratic participation or the extent of
accountability of those entrusted with
governance to their elected representatives.”
19. Thus, it is evident from the 2018
Constitution Bench judgment [State (NCT of
Delhi) v. Union of India, (2018) 8 SCC 501] that
the constitutional status of NCTD is not similar to
other Union Territories, which are covered under
Part VIII of the Constitution.”
43. Article 239AA of the Constitution of India reads as follows:
“239AA. Special provisions with respect
to Delhi.—(1) As from the date of commencement
of the Constitution (Sixty-ninth Amendment) Act,
1991, the Union territory of Delhi shall be called the
National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereafter in this
Part referred to as the National Capital Territory)
and the administrator thereof appointed under
article 239 shall be designated as the Lieutenant
Governor.
(2)(a) There shall be a Legislative Assembly for
the National Capital Territory and the seats in such
Assembly shall be filled by members chosen by
direct election from territorial constituencies in the
National Capital Territory.
(b) The total number of seats in the Legislative
Assembly, the number of seats reserved for
Scheduled Castes, the division of the National
Capital Territory into territorial constituencies
(including the basis for such division) and all other
matters relating to the functioning of the Legislative
Assembly shall be regulated by law made by
Parliament.
(c) The provisions of articles 324 to 327 and
329 shall apply in relation to the National Capital
Territory, the Legislative Assembly of the National
Capital Territory and the members thereof as they
apply, in relation to a State, the Legislative
37
Assembly of a State and the members thereof
respectively; and any reference in articles 326 and
329 to “appropriate Legislature” shall be deemed to
be a reference to Parliament.
(3)(a) Subject to the provisions of this
Constitution, the Legislative Assembly shall have
power to make laws for the whole or any part of
the National Capital Territory with respect to any of
the matters enumerated in the State List or in the
Concurrent List in so far as any such matter is
applicable to Union territories except matters with
respect to Entries 1, 2 and 18 of the State List and
Entries 64, 65 and 66 of that List in so far as they
relate to the said Entries 1, 2 and 18.
(b) Nothing in sub-clause (a) shall derogate
from the powers of Parliament under this
Constitution to make laws with respect to any
matter for a Union territory or any part thereof.
(c) If any provision of a law made by the
Legislative Assembly with respect to any matter is
repugnant to any provision of a law made by
Parliament with respect to that matter, whether
passed before or after the law made by the
Legislative Assembly, or of an earlier law, other
than a law made by the Legislative Assembly,
then, in either case, the law made by Parliament,
or, as the case may be, such earlier law, shall
prevail and the law made by the Legislative
Assembly shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be
void:
Provided that if any such law made by the
Legislative Assembly has been reserved for the
consideration of the President and has received his
assent, such law shall prevail in the National
Capital Territory:
Provided further that nothing in this sub-
clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at
any time any law with respect to the same matter
including a law adding to, amending, varying or
repealing the law so made by the Legislative
Assembly.
(4) There shall be a Council of Ministers
consisting of not more than ten percent. of the total
38
number of members in the Legislative Assembly,
with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and
advise the Lieutenant Governor in the exercise of
his functions in relation to matters with respect to
which the Legislative Assembly has power to make
laws, except in so far as he is, by or under any
law, required to act in his discretion:
Provided that in the case of difference of
opinion between the Lieutenant Governor and his
Ministers on any matter, the Lieutenant Governor
shall refer it to the President for decision and act
according to the decision given thereon by the
President and pending such decision it shall be
competent for the Lieutenant Governor in any case
where the matter, in his opinion, is so urgent that it
is necessary for him to take immediate action, to
take such action or to give such direction in the
matter as he deems necessary.
(5) The Chief Minister shall be appointed by
the President and other Ministers shall be
appointed by the President on the advice of the
Chief Minister and the Ministers shall hold office
during the pleasure of the President.
(6) The Council of Ministers shall be
collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly.
[(7) (a)] Parliament may, by law, make
provisions for giving effect to, or supplementing the
provisions contained in the foregoing clauses and
for all matters incidental or consequential thereto.
[(b) Any such law as is referred to in sub-
clause (a) shall not be deemed to be an amendment
of this Constitution for the purposes of article 368
notwithstanding that it contains any provision
which amends or has the effect of amending, this
Constitution.]
(8) The provisions of article 239B shall, so far
as may be, apply in relation to the National Capital
Territory, the Lieutenant Governor and the
Legislative Assembly, as they apply in relation to
the Union territory of [Puducherry], the
administrator and its Legislature, respectively; and
any reference in that article to “clause (1) of article
39
239A” shall be deemed to be a reference to this
article or article 239AB, as the case may be.”
44. Article -1 of the Constitution of India deals with the Name and Territory
of the Union, which reads as follows:
“1. Name and territory of the Union.— (1)
India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
[(2) The States and the territories thereof shall
be as specified in the First Schedule.]
(3) The territory of India shall comprise—
(a) the territories of the States;
[(b) the Union territories specified in the
First Schedule; and]
(c) such other territories as may be
acquired.”
45. The Union territories specified in the First Schedule Part-II which reads
as follows:
Name Territories
II. THE UNION TERRITORIES
Name Extent
1. Delhi
[* * * * *]
[* * * * *]
The territory which immediately
before the commencement of this
Constitution was comprised in the
Chief Commissioner’s Province of
Delhi.
2. The Andaman and Nicobar
Islands
The territory which immediately
before the commencement of this
Constitution was comprised in the
Chief Commissioner’s Province of
the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
3. [Lakshadweep] The territory specified in section 6
of the States Reorganisation Act,
1956.
40
[4. Dadra and Nagar Haveli
and Daman and Diu]
The territory which immediately
before the eleventh day of August,
1961 was comprised in Free Dadra
and Nagar Haveli and the territories
specified in section 4 of the Goa,
Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act,
1987.]
5. [ * * * *]
[6. [Puducherry] The territories which immediately
before the sixteenth day of August,
1962, were comprised in the French
Establishments in India known as
Pondicherry, Karikal, Mahe and
Yanam.]
[7. Chandigarh
[* * * * *]
[* * * * *]
The territories specified in section 4
of the Punjab Reorganisation Act,
1966
[8. Jammu and Kashmir The territories specified in section 4
of the Jammu and Kashmir
Reorganization Act, 2019.
[9. Ladakh The territories specified in section 3
of the Jammu and Kashmir
Reorganisation Act, 2019.]
46. In the case of Government of NCT of Delhi (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that:
“40. Soon thereafter, in 1962, Article 239-A
was inserted in the Constitution by the Constitution
(Fourteenth Amendment) Act, 1962. This envisaged
the creation of local legislatures or a Council of
Ministers or both for certain Union Territories. Thus,
a significant change was introduced in the
governance structure for the Union Territories.
Article 239-A created a separate category of the
Union Territories since all Union Territories were no
longer envisaged to be administered only by the
President. The introduction of Article 239-A was
followed by the Government of Union Territories
41
Act, 1963. Currently, the Union Territory of
Puducherry is administered in terms of the
governance structure envisaged by this enactment.
41. By the Constitution (Sixty-ninth
Amendment) Act, 1991 (“the 1991 Constitution
Amendment”), Article 239-AA was inserted in the
Constitution. It introduced a unique structure of
governance for NCTD vis-à-vis the Union Territories.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons provides as
follows:
“1. … After such detailed inquiry and
examination, it recommended that Delhi
should continue to be a Union Territory and
provided with a Legislative Assembly and a
Council of Ministers responsible to such
Assembly with appropriate powers to deal
with matters of concern to the common man.
The Committee also recommended that with a
view to ensure stability and permanence, the
arrangements should be incorporated in the
Constitution to give the National Capital a
special status among the Union Territories.”
44. The concurring opinion of Chandrachud,
J. in the 2018 Constitution Bench judgment
expressly discussed this aspect and held that no
single homogeneous class of the Union Territories
exists. Instead, the Union Territories fall in various
categories :
“453. The judgment of the majority
[NDMC v. State of Punjab] also holds that all
Union Territories are not situated alike. The
first category consists of Union Territories
which have no legislature at all. The second
category has legislatures created by a law
enacted by Parliament under the Government
of Union Territories Act, 1963. The third
category is Delhi which has “special features”
under Article 239-AA. Though the Union
Territory of Delhi “is in a class by itself”, it ‘is
certainly not a State within the meaning of
Article 246 or Part VI of the Constitution’.
Various Union Territories — the Court
observed — are in different stages of
evolution. …
42
***
475.1. The introduction of Article 239-AA
into the Constitution was the result of the
exercise of the constituent power. The Sixty-
ninth Amendment to the Constitution has
important consequences for the special status
of Delhi as the National Capital Territory,
albeit under the rubric of a Union Territory
governed by Part VIII of the Constitution.”
48. Therefore, we are unable to agree with
the argument of the Solicitor General that the
legislative power of NCTD does not extend to those
subjects which are not available to the Union
Territories as a class because Article 239-AA
employs the term “any such matter is applicable to
Union Territories”. The analysis in this section
clarifies that there is no homogeneous class of the
Union Territories with similar governance
structures.”
47. Through the Constitution (Sixty Ninth Amendment) Act, 1991
Parliament inserted Articles 239AA and 239AB. Article 239AA of the
Constitution created special provisions for Delhi. First it provided that
the ‘Union Territory of Delhi’ would henceforth be known as the
‘National Capital Territory of Delhi’ (NCT). The Administration of NCT
would be the ‘Lieutenant Governor’. Article 239AA set up a Legislative
Assembly which would have the power to make laws for the NCT with
respect to the matters in the State List of the Constitution. Article
239AA did not deprive Parliament from making laws with respect to
Union Territory of Delhi. The provision set up a Council of Ministers,
and a Chief Minister of Delhi, who would aid and advise the Lieutenant
Governor on those matters that the Legislative Assembly was
empowered to make laws. In case of a disagreement between the
43
Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly, the President shall
decide the dispute.
48. Delhi is a Union Territory officially designated as the National Capital
Territory of Delhi. While it functions as a hybrid, possessing an elected
Legislative Assembly and Chief Minister. It is not full-fledged State and
remains under the administrative control of the Union Government.
Considering the above, the argument made by the Learned Advocate for
the respondent authorities that the Delhi is not Union Territory is not
sustainable.
49. The respondent no. 6 has submitted its experience in connection to
Clause 4(b) of the eligibility criteria of four States i.e. Assam, Himachal
Pradesh, Mizoram and Andhra Pradesh. As regard to the work
completion certificate of Mizoram, the respondent no.5 has installed
765 numbers of IP Based Web Cameras in polling station which is 60%
of the total polling stations. It is the contention of the respondent nos. 1
to 3 and 6 that as per the instruction of the Election Commission of
India, web casting is to be done in all critical polling stations and all
polling stations in vulnerable areas at least 50% of the total polling
station including auxiliary polling stations. Thus the respondent
authorities have taken into consideration as 100%.
Similarly with regard to the work completed certificate of State of
Andhra Pradesh, the respondent no.6 has commissioned IP based video
surveillance system including live streaming recording at the Andhra
44
Pradesh Legislative Council and not for any Assembly Election or Lok
Sabha Election.
The petitioners have provided work experience certificate of
Puducherry and Daman but the respondents have not considered the
same as Union Territory whereas the fact remains that the respondents
have accepted the work experience of Delhi with respect to the
respondent no.5.
50. In the case of Banshidhar Construction Private Limited Vs. Bharat
Coking Coal Limited and Others reported in (2024) 10 SCC 273, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :
“36. It was sought to be submitted by the
learned counsel for the respondents relying upon
the observations made in Central Coalfields
Ltd. v. SLL-SML (JVC), that whether a term of NIT
is essential or not is a decision taken by the
employer which should be respected. However, in
the said judgment also it is observed that if the
employer has exercised the inherent authority to
deviate from the essential term, such deviation has
to be made applicable to all the bidders and
potential bidders. It was observed in paras 47 and
48 as under :
“47. The result of this discussion is that
the issue of the acceptance or rejection of a bid
or a bidder should be looked at not only from
the point of view of the unsuccessful party but
also from the point of view of the employer. As
held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty the terms of
NIT cannot be ignored as being redundant or
superfluous. They must be given a meaning
and the necessary significance. As pointed out
in Tata Cellular there must be judicial
restraint in interfering with administrative
action. Ordinarily, the soundness of the
decision taken by the employer ought not to be
questioned but the decision-making process
45
can certainly be subject to judicial review. The
soundness of the decision may be questioned
if it is irrational or mala fide or intended to
favour someone or a decision ‘that no
responsible authority acting reasonably and in
accordance with relevant law could have
reached’ as held in Jagdish Mandal followed
in Michigan Rubbe.
48. Therefore, whether a term of NIT is
essential or not is a decision taken by the
employer which should be respected. Even if
the term is essential, the employer has the
inherent authority to deviate from it provided
the deviation is made applicable to all bidders
and potential bidders as held in Ramana
Dayaram Shetty. However, if the term is held
by the employer to be ancillary or subsidiary,
even that decision should be respected. The
lawfulness of that decision can be questioned
on very limited grounds, as mentioned in the
various decisions discussed above, but the
soundness of the decision cannot be
questioned, otherwise this Court would be
taking over the function of the tender issuing
authority, which it cannot.”
37. The submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respondents that the project in
question being infrastructure project and also one
of the mega projects, this Court may not interfere
more particularly in view of the fact that agreement
has already been entered into between the
respondent BCCL and the Special Purpose Vehicle
of Respondent 8, cannot be accepted, when we
have found that the impugned decision of the
respondent BCCL was grossly arbitrary, illegal,
discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. As held earlier, the
Government bodies/instrumentalities are expected
to act in absolutely fair, reasonable and
transparent manner, particularly in the award of
contracts for mega projects. Any element of
arbitrariness or discrimination may lead to
hampering of the entire project which would not be
in the public interest.
46
51. In the case of N.G. Projects Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and
Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that:
“10. We find that the interference in contract
awarded to the appellant is wholly unwarranted
and has caused loss to public interest. Construction
of roads is an essential part of development of
infrastructure in any State. The learned Single
Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court
were exercising power of judicial review to find out
whether the decision of the State was manifestly
arbitrary or unjust as laid down by this Court
in Tata Cellular v. Union of India and to act as
appellate authority over the decision of the State.
This Court in Tata Cellular held as under :
“70. It cannot be denied that the
principles of judicial review would apply to the
exercise of contractual powers by government
bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or
favouritism. However, it must be clearly stated
that there are inherent limitations in exercise
of that power of judicial review. Government
is the guardian of the finances of the State. It
is expected to protect the financial interest of
the State. The right to refuse the lowest or any
other tender is always available to the
Government. But, the principles laid down in
Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in
view while accepting or refusing a tender.
There can be no question of infringement of
Article 14 if the Government tries to get the
best person or the best quotation. The right to
choose cannot be considered to be an
arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power is
exercised for any collateral purpose the
exercise of that power will be struck down.
***
77. The duty of the court is to confine
itself to the question of legality. Its concern
should be:
1. Whether a decision-making authority
exceeded its powers?
47
2. committed an error of law,
3. committed a breach of the rules of
natural justice,
4. reached a decision which no reasonable
tribunal would have reached or,
5. abused its powers.
Therefore, it is not for the court to determine
whether a particular policy or particular
decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is
fair. It is only concerned with the manner in
which those decisions have been taken. The
extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from
case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon
which an administrative action is subject to
control by judicial review can be classified as
under:
(i) Illegality : This means the decision-
maker must understand correctly
the law that regulates his decision-
making power and must give effect
to it.
(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury
unreasonableness.
(iii) Procedural impropriety.
The above are only the broad grounds but it
does not rule out addition of further grounds in
course of time. As a matter of fact,
in R. v. Secy. of State for the Home Deptt., ex
p Brind, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one
development, namely, the possible recognition
of the principle of proportionality. In all these
cases the test to be adopted is that the court
should, ‘consider whether something has gone
wrong of a nature and degree which requires
its intervention’.
***
94. The principles deducible from the
above are:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial
restraint in administrative action.
48
(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. Normally speaking, the
decision to accept the tender or award the
contract is reached by process of
negotiations through several tiers. More
often than not, such decisions are made
qualitatively by experts.
(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.
Based on these principles we will examine the
facts of this case since they commend to us as
the correct principles.”
13. This Court sounded a word of caution in
another judgment reported as Silppi Constructions
Contractors v. Union of India, wherein it was held
that the courts must realise their limitations and
the havoc which needless interference in
49
commercial matters could cause. In contracts
involving technical issues, the courts should be
even more reluctant because most of us in Judges'
robes do not have the necessary expertise to
adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our
domain. As laid down in the judgments cited
above, the courts should not use a magnifying
glass while scanning the tenders and make every
small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the
courts must give “fair play in the joints” to the
government and public sector undertakings in
matters of contract. The courts must also not
interfere where such interference would cause
unnecessary loss to the public exchequer.
22. The satisfaction whether a bidder
satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the
authority inviting the bids. Such authority is aware
of expectations from the tenderers while evaluating
the consequences of non-performance. In the tender
in question, there were 15 bidders. Bids of 13
tenderers were found to be unresponsive i.e. not
satisfying the tender conditions. The writ petitioner
was one of them. It is not the case of the writ
petitioner that action of the Technical Evaluation
Committee was actuated by extraneous
considerations or was mala fide. Therefore, on the
same set of facts, different conclusions can be
arrived at in a bona fide manner by the Technical
Evaluation Committee. Since the view of the
Technical Evaluation Committee was not to the
liking of the writ petitioner, such decision does not
warrant for interference in a grant of contract to a
successful bidder.
23. In view of the above judgments of this
Court, the writ court should refrain itself from
imposing its decision over the decision of the
employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a
tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to
examine the terms and conditions of the present
day economic activities of the State and this
limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be
even more reluctant in interfering with contracts
involving technical issues as there is a requirement
of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such
issues. The approach of the Court should be not to
find fault with magnifying glass in its hands,
50
rather the Court should examine as to whether the
decision-making process is after complying with the
procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If
the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or
that the tender has been granted in a mala fide
manner, still the Court should refrain from
interfering in the grant of tender but instead
relegate the parties to seek damages for the
wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the
execution of the contract. The injunction or
interference in the tender leads to additional costs
on the State and is also against public interest.
Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice,
firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by
being deprived of the infrastructure for which the
present day Governments are expected to work.”
52. In the case of Surguja Bricks Industries Company Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2916
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“24. We are of the unhesitant view that an
eligibilitycriteria should be clear and unambiguous.
Otherwise, it may lead to arbitrary exercise of
power by the State disqualifying a tenderer who
would otherwise meet the eligibility criteria.
In West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Patel
Engineering, this Court declared that to hold that a
State or its agencies can reject a tender for breach
of a term or condition in the tender document which
is not explicit in the tender documents is to give
room to the State or its agencies to arbitrarily reject
tenders even when clear terms or conditions of
tender documents are complied with. Therefore, it
is the responsibility of the tendering authority to
issue clear and unambiguous instructions in a NIT.
As pointed out by this Court in Patel
Engineering (supra), when there is vagueness or
subjectivity in the norms, it may result in an
unequal and discriminatory treatment and provide
room for manipulation to suit the whims of the
State agencies in picking and choosing a bidder for
awarding contracts.
51
26.1. This Court also referred to its earlier
decision in the case of Dutta Associates (P)
Ltd. v. Indo Merchantiles (P) Ltd.
9, where this
Court found that the offer of the lowest tenderer for
wholesale supply of rectified spirit (Grade 1) to the
Excise Department, Government of Assam, was not
accepted on the ground that the price offered did
not come within the ‘viability range’ and this Court
held that the tender process was vitiated for the
reason that the tender notice did not specify the
‘viability range’ nor did it say that only the tenders
coming within the ‘viability range’ will be
considered. In Dutta Associates (P) Ltd., this Court
observed that whatever procedure the Government
proposes to follow in accepting the tender must be
clearly stated in the tender notice; the
consideration of tenders received and the
procedure to be followed in the matter of
acceptance of a tender should be transparent, fair
and open.
27. There is no dispute to the proposition that
the tender inviting authority is the best judge to
understand and appreciate its requirements and
interpret its documents. In Afcons Infrastructure
Ltd. and in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. as well as in
subsequent decisions, this Court has upheld this
principle observing that ordinarily constitutional
courts should defer to the understanding of the
tender inviting authority of the tender documents.
However, this principle has its own limitations. If
the interpretation of the tender inviting authority or
its understanding of the tender conditions is
vitiated by mala fides or perversity, there is no
question of a constitutional court showing
deference to such understanding. Likewise, if the
interpretation of the tender inviting authority of a
particular condition of tender, such as, an eligibility
criteria as in the present case is irrational or
absurd leading to arbitrary consequences, it would
be the duty of a constitutional court to interdict
such a decision making process. To hold otherwise
would render the very object of judicial
review otiose.”
53. In the present case before participation in the tender process, a pre-bid
meeting was held. The petitioners have submitted its proposal for
52
amendment in the Eligibility Criteria 4(a) and 4(b) but the respondent
authorities have not considered the proposal of the petitioners. Even
after refusal of the proposal of the petitioners, the petitioners have
participated in the tender process. The last date of submission of
tender process was 21
st February, 2026 but on 20
th February, 2026,
the respondents have issued corrigendum wherein the respondents
have modified Clause 4(b) of the Eligibility Criteria by deleting the word
“different” and included numerical “3”. The respondent no. 5 got the
benefit as the respondent no.5 has the experience of “Delhi” in Lok
Sabha Election in the year 2024 and Assembly Election in the year
2025. In the pre-bid meeting, it was the specific request of the
petitioners’ that deletion of UT and the same was not considered but
the respondent authorities have considered the experience of the
respondent no.5 executed the work in Delhi Election though the Delhi
is the Union Territory. On the other hand, the respondent authorities
have not considered the experience of the petitioners of Puducherry and
Daman on the ground of Union Territory.
54. Similarly, the respondent authorities have considered the experience of
the respondent no.6 of Mizoram and Andhra Pradesh though the
respondent has the experience in Mizoram only 60% and experience in
Andhra Pradesh is only with respect to Assembly Council Election and
not either Lok Sabha Election or Assembly Election of the State.
55. It is settled law that while invoking power of judicial review in matters
as to the tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should
53
be borne in mind that evaluations of tenders and awarding of contracts
are essentially commercial functions and principles of equity and
natural justice stay at a distance in such matters. If the decision
relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest,
Courts will not interfere by exercising powers of judicial review even if a
procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer
is made out. Power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect
private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual
dispute.
56. The respondents have also challenged the maintainability of the writ
petition on the ground that the petitioners have suppressed the fact
that the petitioners have participated in the pre-bid meeting and the
proposal of the petitioners was refused by deleting the UT in the
explanation clause but even the petitioners has participated and shown
experience in the Union Territory and now prayed for setting aside the
Request for Proposal. In the mid of hearing, the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners is not pressing prayer (b) of the writ petition and he
prayed for order on the basis of equity. The petitioners have also filed a
supplementary affidavit prayed for relaxation by allowing the
petitioners to participate in the RFP dated 9
th February, 2026.
57. Technical bid of the petitioners, was rejected on 28
th February, 2026.
The petitioners have affirmed the affidavit of the writ petition on 11
th
March, 2026 and filed on 12
th March, 2026 and moved before this
Court on 16
th March, 2026. Mr. Mitra during argument has handed
54
over two documents i.e. e-Procurement System of Government of West
Bengal dated 17
th March, 2026 and 18
th March, 2026 wherein it reveals
that till 18
th March, 2026, Financial Evaluation and Acceptance of
contract was not completed. On the other hand, the respondents have
placed work orders dated 11
th March, 2026 and submit that the
respondents have already started the work. The Request For Proposal is
for providing a Surveillance System for Live Web Streaming (Audio,
Video, Record, Viewing, CCTV and Other Services) for the General
Election of West Bengal Legislative Assembly, 2026. The Request For
Proposal is issued in public interest. The Election Commission of India
has already declared Election in the State of West Bengal on 23
rd April,
2026 and 29
th April, 2026.
58. This Court finds that in the writ petition, the petitioners have disclosed
all the documents on the basis of which the petitioners as well as the
added respondents have participated in the tender process. After filing
of the case, the petitioners have changed its mind and not pressed the
prayer (b) for setting aside of Request For Proposal and prayed for
allowing the petitioners to participate in the tender process by
relaxation of some conditions. The respondents have produced their
respective work orders issued on 11
th March, 2026 and it is the specific
submissions that the respondents have started their work in terms of
their work orders. The work orders relied by the petitioners are also
suspicious whether it was actually issued on 11
th March, 2026 or to
make the writ petition infructuous. From record, it revealed that work
55
orders were not uploaded till 18
th March, 2026 on the website. The
Tender process was conducted through online process. All
correspondences have also made through online but have not uploaded
the Financial Evaluation and Acceptance of Contract in the e-
Procurement of System till 18
th March, 2026, thus the case made out
by the respondents that work orders have been issued on 11
th March,
2026 is not acceptable.
59. The petitioners have not pressed the challenge of RFP and only
challenged the conduct of the respondents on the ground of equality,
thus writ petition is maintainable. This Court finds that the act of the
respondent authorities by awarding tender to the respondent nos. 5
and 6 by rejecting the technical bid of the petitioners is arbitrary and
mala fide as in one hand, the respondents have taken into
consideration of the experience of the private respondents of Delhi, and
on the other hand, the experience of the petitioners in Puducherry and
Daman is not considered. The respondent authorities have not treated
the petitioners equal to the private respondent with regard to the
experience relied by the petitioners. This Court refrain from interfering
the work orders issued in favour of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 only on
the ground that the Request For Proposal is for the public interest i.e.
for the General Election to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, 2026
and the election is to be conducted on 23
rd April, 2026 and 29
th April,
2026. It is settled law that public interest prevail over private interest. If
the petitioners are so advised, the petitioner is at liberty to take
56
appropriate steps for damages before the appropriate Court in
accordance with law.
60. WPA No. 6237 of 2026 is thus disposed of.
Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the
Judgment placed on the official website of the Court.
Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for,
be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Krishna Rao, J.)
Legal Notes
Add a Note....