STUDIO SHREE Vs. ELECTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 16-10-2018 issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby tender of respondent No.4 of videography during election has been accepted.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details : the factual expose of the present case lies in a narrow compass. The Election Commission of India has issued instructions for use of videography and digital cameras during course of forthcoming elections. It provided that in the matter of selection of videographers and their deployment, private videographers have to be hired after thorough screening in respect of their professional competence, track record, financial viability and other adjunct factors.

(3.) In compliance to the aforesaid instructions, the Collector/District Election Officer, Katni, respondent No.2 issued General Conditions for Tender (annexed at page No.35 of the writ petition). Clause 4 of the conditions stipulates that a tenderer must have three years experience of videography in a Government Office/Undertaking or public establishment. The tenderer shall file a certificate in this regard which would bear the name of the officer, post, phone number etc. of the said government office/undertaking or public establishment which has issued the experience certificate. It is further provided that preference would be given to the tenderers having experience in election works. According to the writ petitioner along with this NIT a tender Form (A), Part-1 was provided. In column No.8 of the tender form, there was requirement of three years experience and an experience certificate in that behalf has to be annexed by the tenderer. The tenderer was further required to attach three years income tax returns as per column No.9. This Form was a part of tender conditions issued by the respondent No.2.