M/S INNOVATIVIEW INDIA LIMITED THROUGH ITS REPRESTATIVE ASHISH PAINULY vs THE CHIEF ELECTRORAL OFFICER WEST BENGAL AND ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)
ORIGINAL SIDE

Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao

W.P.O. No. 89 of 2026

M/s Innovatiview India Limited through
its representative Ashish Painuly
Vs.
The Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal & Anr.


Mr. Jaydip Kar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya
Mr. Anuj Saxena
Mr. Anuj Rakshit
Mr. Aditya Mondal
....For the petitioner.

Mr. Soumendra Nath Mookherjee, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Anamika Pandey
Mr. Naman Choudhury
Mr. Ghanshyam Pandey
….For the respondents.

Hearing Concluded On : 26.02.2026
Judgment on : 27.02.2026

2

Krishna Rao, J.:
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application praying for setting
aside and quashing of the tender being Request for Proposal (RFP) No.
th
CEOWB/2026 /e-tender /002 dated 9 February, 2026 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.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the eligibility criteria in Clause 4(a) and
4(b) under the heading “Bidder’s Experience” wherein it is mentioned
that:
(a) Bidder should have executed live election web
streaming (IP based HD CCTV) cameras-based
audio and video from multiple locations) orders
cumulatively totalling 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 and 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.

3

3. The petitioner has submitted Pre-bid query to the respondent no. 1 and
requested for the following changes:
“We respectfully submit that we possess the
requisite experience of deploying more than
1,30,000 cameras for live web streaming at
polling stations. In this context, we request the
department to relax or rationalize the experience
requirement pertaining to the installation of CCTV
cameras at counting centres.

Further, an agency that has demonstrably
executed live web streaming across tens of
thousands of polling stations has, by definition,
established its technical capability, operational
scalability, manpower planning capacity, and
logistical maturity. Accordingly, the counting-centre
experience condition does not evaluate a materially
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.”


th

4. On 20 February, 2026, the respondent no. 2 issued corrigendum but
has not considered the suggestion of the petitioner as proposed by the
petitioner.

5. Mr. Jaydip Kar, Learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner
submits that similar tender was published at Kerala and same
eligibility condition was imposed in the said tender by the same
authority and the petitioner had submitted pre-bid suggestion to the
tendering authority and the tendering authority considered the

4

suggestions and modified the eligibility criteria by way of corrigendum
which reads as follows :
“The bidder should have experienced in
executing live web streaming (with IP based HD
web cameras-based audio and video from multiple
locations) for Elections conducted by Election
Commission of India (ECI) / State Election
Commission. The bidder should have successfully
executed the following project/s during the last 3
years in India covering the following number of
polling stations.


a) 15,000 locations for polling in a single order.
(or)
b) 20,000 locations for polling in two orders. (or)
c) 25,000 locations for polling in three orders.”


6. Mr. Kar submits that the petitioner was awarded with the similar work
for Webcasting of the poll proceeding on the days of the poll in the Lok
Sabha General Election, 2024 in the State of Uttar Pradesh and the
petitioner has successfully executed the work and the authorities have
provided completion certificate.


7. Mr. Kar submits that as per Clause 24 of the bid document, it also
reveals that the respondents can award the work order to more than
one bidder that matches L1 rate and meet the required technical
criteria.

8. Mr. Kar submits that the respondents have incorporated the said
conditions in the eligibility criteria only to give benefit to the selective
bidders and deprive the other bidder who are otherwise eligible to
participate in the said tender.

5

9. In respect of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment in the
case of Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Chhattisgarh
& Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2119 , held that :
“19. The object of public procurement is to
secure quality goods and services for the benefit of
public exchequer. The said object can be achieved
by requiring the bidders to demonstrate financial
capacity, technical experience, and past
performance in contracts of similar nature,
regardless of place of performance of the contract.
To confine the eligibility to participate in the tender,
within one State is not only irrational but is also
disproportionate to the goal of ensuring effective
delivery of Sports Kits.”


10. Mr. Soumendra Nath Mookherjee, Learned Senior Advocate,
representing the respondents submits that the petitioner has made a
false statement that despite submitting Pre-bid query before the
respondent no. 1, the respondent authorities sat tight over the matter
though the petitioner has participated in the Pre-bid tender and after
th
the discussion, the authorities have issued the corrigendum dated 20
February, 2026 which the petitioner has already disclosed at page 82 of
the present writ application.

11. Mr. Mookherjee submits that as per the Pre-bid queries raised by the
petitioner reveals that the petitioner is not having experience of
installation of CCTV in the counting centres. He submits that the
petitioner has made an allegation that the respondents have
incorporated Clause 4 which is a tailor made in order to cut out
competition and curtail participation in the tender process but the

6

petitioner has not disclosed the name of the persons to whom the
respondents are intending to support for issuance of tender.

12. Mr. Mookherjee submits that in Clause 24 of the tender document, the
respondents have only reserved their right to award the work order to
more than one bidder, if any, emergency occasion arises. He submits
that the petitioner has misinterpreted the said Clause by saying that
the respondents will award the work order to other bidders also.

13. Mr. Mookherjee submits that in the tender document, it is categorically
mentioned that at present in the State of West Bengal, there are 80681
Polling Booths, and total counting centres are 108 and total counting
halls are 421. He submits that 80681 polling stations are required to be
monitored through Webcasting. The Webcasting is also to be carried
out from 108 counting halls which will be conducted in large halls from
designated counting counters besides 1470 checkposts, 2646 FSV,
approximately 3093 QRT Vehicles across the constituency as per the
instructions of the Election Commission of India.

14. Mr. Mookherjee submits that the petitioner cannot equate the election
of State of Kerala with the election of State of West Bengal. He submits
that as per the instruction of the Election Commission of India, all
polling stations i.e. 100% with the internet connectivity have to be
monitored through Webcasting to ensure oversight the critical
activities.

7

15. Mr. Mookherjee submits that the number of locations for audio video
recording is 421 counting halls in 108 counting centres. At the
counting centres, 7 numbers of cameras are to be installed per hall and
at the counting premises 10 numbers of cameras per premises for other
purposes. He submits that if the Pre-bid queries submitted by the
petitioner are taken into consideration, it reveals that the petitioner is
not qualifying with the conditions for installment of CCTV in counting
centres and thus has requested for modification of the tender condition.

16. Mr. Mookherjee submits that the terms and conditions of the invitation
to tender are within the domain of the making authority and are not
open to judicial scrutiny unless and until there are arbitrary,
discriminatory and mala fide on behalf of the tender making authority.
In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment in the
case of Airport Authority of India vs. Centre for Aviation Policy,
Safety and Research (CAPSR) & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 1334 .


17. Heard the Learned Counsels for the respective parties, perused the
materials on record and the judgments relied by the parties. As per the
eligibility criteria, the bidder should have executed live election web
streaming (IP based HD CCTV cameras-based audio and video from
multiple locations) orders cumulatively totaling is not less than
1,30,000 cameras for web streaming at Polling Stations and at least
3000 CCTV cameras in counting in India for CEO office or any
Government Departments/PSUs and Government Agencies on behalf of

8

Election Commission of India during the three (3) financial years from
the date of RFP (2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26). It is further provided
that the bidder should have executed at least 3 full state orders of live
web streaming (IP based HD CCTV cameras–based audio and video
from multiple locations) for web streaming of Elections in different
States of India on behalf of the Election Commission of India during
three (3) years from date of issue of RFP (2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-
26). The petitioner in the pre-bid quires, has given the suggestion for
change the criteria which reads as follows :
“We respectfully submit that we possess the
requisite experience of deploying more than
1,30,000 cameras for live web streaming at
polling stations. In this context, we request the
department to relax or rationalize the experience
requirement pertaining to the installation of CCTV
cameras at counting centres.

Further, an agency that has demonstrably
executed live web streaming across tens of
thousands of polling stations has, by definition,
established its technical capability, operational
scalability, manpower planning capacity, and
logistical maturity. Accordingly, the counting-centre
experience condition does not evaluate a materially
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.”


18. The petitioner is only aggrieved with regard to the installation of CCTV
cameras at counting centres. If the suggestion for changes in the

9

eligibility criteria as proposed by the petitioner is taken into
consideration, admittedly, the petitioner is not having the said
experience which required for the present tender process.

19. The petitioner has relied upon the tender published during the election
process in the State of Kerala and as per the pre-bid request of the
petitioner, the authorities have issued the corrigendum and the
petitioner has participated in the said tender. The eligibility criteria
mentioned in the State of Kerala is that the bidder should have
experience in executing live web streaming (with IP based HD web
cameras– based audio and video from multiples locations) for elections
conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI)/ State Election
Commission. The bidders should have successfully executed the
following projects during the last three (3) years in India covering the
following number of polling stations:

a) 20,000 locations for polling and 2500 cameras for
counting in a single order. (or)
b) 25,000 locations for polling and 3,000 cameras for
counting in two orders. (or)
c) 30,000 locations for polling and 3500 cameras for
counting in three orders.

The petitioner has proposed for revising the eligibility criteria to
the effect that the bidder should have experience in executing live web
streaming (with IP based HD web cameras– based audio and video from
multiple locations) for Elections conducted by Election Commission of

10

India (ECI)/ State Election Commission. The bidder should have
successfully executed the following projects during the last three years
in India covering the following number of polling stations:
a) 20,000 locations for polling and cameras for
counting in a single order. (or)
b) 25,000 locations for polling and cameras for
counting in two orders. (or)

c) 30,000 locations for polling and cameras for
counting in three orders.

The suggestion of the petitioner was considered by modifying the
clauses as follows:
a) 15,000 locations for polling and 1750 cameras for
counting in a single order. (or)
b) 20,000 locations for polling and 2000 cameras for
counting into orders. (or)
c) 25,000 locations for polling and 3000 cameras for
counting in three orders.

20. Even the modification allowed by the State of Kerala is taken into
consideration, it is found that 1000 cameras for counting a single
order, 2000 cameras for counting in two orders and 3000 cameras for
counting in three orders was allowed but in the present case, the
petitioner has suggested at least one work order involving counting
centre deployments or the bidders having experience or deploying a
minimum 400 CCTV cameras as counting centre to participate in the
tender, thus the suggestion which has been given by the petitioner in

11

the Pre-bid query is not equivalent to the changes/modification allowed
at the time of Election in the State of Kerala.

21. The petitioner has also relied upon the experience certificate showing
that the petitioner has satisfactorily completed work of Webcasting in
81036 Polling Stations in 75 Districts and 80 Parliament
Constituencies of Uttar Pradesh during Lok Sabha General Elections in
seven (7) phases. But the said certificate does not reveal that in how
many centres, the petitioners have provided CCTV camera. The
petitioner has made a specific allegation that the tender conditions
imposed by the authorities is tailor made in order to cater the 2 to 3
intending bidders who have only the requisite experience as per the
tender conditions. The petitioner has made a specific allegation of tailor
made conditions but has not disclosed the name of the intending
bidders to whom the respondent authorities are intending to issue the
work order for the said work.

22. The petitioner has not participated in the present tender process as the
petitioner is not having the requisite experience and has filed the
present writ application challenging the eligibility criteria mentioned in
Clause 4(a) and 4(b). It is submitted by Mr. Mookherjee representing
the respondents that the four persons have already participated in the
tender process having requisite qualifications. The petitioner has relied
upon the judgment in the case of Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the conditions
imposed in the said tender curtails the fundamental rights of the

12

bidders, who have been ineligible to participate in the tenders but the
said judgment is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of
the present case. In the said case, the conditions imposed by the
authority that “bidders must have supplied sports goods worth at least
Rs. 6 cores (cumulative) to State Government agencies of Chhattisgarh in
the last three financial years” . The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
conditions imposed by the authorities for supply of goods to the State
Government agencies of Chhattisgarh is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution of India but in the present case, the authorities have
not imposed such conditions. The authorities have only ask for the
experience of execution of live election web streaming orders
cumulatively totaling is not less than 1,30,000 cameras for web
streaming at polling stations and at least 3000 CCTV cameras
installations in counting in India for CEO office or any Government
Departments.

23. The only contentions of the petitioner that the authorities have illegally
incorporated the condition for installation of 3000 cameras for counting
only to favour some intending bidders who are having such experience.
The authorities have imposed the said conditions as the intending
bidders have to install the camera in the counting centres. As per the
data disclosed in the tender document, it reveals that there are
altogether 80681 polling stations, 108 counting centres and 421 are the
counting halls and thus in the counting centres and the counting halls

13

also required CCTV cameras due to which the said conditions have
been incorporated in the tender document.

24. In the case of Airport Authority of India (supra) , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has categorically held that the Government and their
undertaking must have a free hand in setting terms of the tender and
only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, the
courts can interfere. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the
court cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the
Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would
have been fair, wiser or logical.

25. In the present case, the authorities taking into consideration of the
polling stations and the counting centres have imposed the conditions
for having at least 3000 CCTV cameras in counting in India for CEO
Office or any Government Departments/ PSUs and Government
Agencies on behalf of the Election Commission of India during the three
(3) financial years from the date of RFP. The petitioner is not having the
said experience and at the pre-bid stage, the petitioner has participated
in the pre-bid meeting and has submitted its suggestions but the
authorities have not considered the request of the petitioner as the
experience of counting stations is very much required to monitor the
polling stations, counting centres and counting halls.

26. Considering the above, this Court did not find any reason to interfere
the terms and conditions imposed by the authorities in the tender

14

documents in Clause 4(a) and 4(b) of the eligibility criteria in
participating in the tender process.

27. WPO No. 89 of 2026 is dismissed .

(Krishna Rao, J.)
Later:
After delivery of the judgment, Counsel for the petitioner prayed for
stay of the order. Learned Counsel for the respondents raised objection.
Heard the Learned Counsels for the respective parties. Prayer is
refused.
(Krishna Rao, J.)