Calcutta High Court Upholds CEO West Bengal Show Cause Notice In 2024 Lok Sabha Poll Webcasting Contract Dispute

The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with a show-cause notice issued to Pho Com Net Pvt Ltd in connection with a Rs. 25.9 crore contract for providing webcasting and live monitoring services during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, holding that the dispute raised involves contested factual issues not suited for adjudication in writ jurisdiction.

Upholding a Single Judge's decision to dismiss the company's writ petition, a Division Bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray found no infirmity in the ruling, observing that the matter arose out of a contractual dispute requiring factual determination. The court said:

“We therefore do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order under appeal. The learned Single Judge has duly recorded the facts of the case and has applied the correct law in dismissing the writ petition. It is a well-considered and well-reasoned judgment which does not warrant interference.”

Pho Com Net was awarded the contract pursuant to an e-tender dated January 17, 2024, and a work order issued on April 13, 2024, for providing webcasting services across polling stations in West Bengal during the general elections.

The company claimed it successfully executed the work, obtained completion certificates from district election authorities, and received payments after certain deductions.

However, a show-cause notice dated July 7, 2025 alleged deficiencies in performance, including disruptions in live streaming, failure to provide required data and footage, and lapses in equipment deployment. The notice proposed forfeiture of the earnest money deposit, invocation of bank guarantees, and possible blacklisting.

The court reiterated that writ courts ordinarily do not interfere at the stage of a show-cause notice unless it is issued without jurisdiction or constitutes an abuse of process, neither of which was established in the present case. It also noted that the allegations raised in the notice involved “diverse factual issues” that could not be adjudicated without evidence.

Referring to the decision in Unitech Limited & Ors. v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIC) & Ors., the bench observed that while the existence of an arbitration clause does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction, recourse to such jurisdiction must be assessed on a case-to-case basis. The court said:

“Similarly the presence of an arbitration clause does not oust the jurisdiction under Article 226 in all cases though, it needs to be decided from case to case as to whether recourse to a public law remedy is justified."

Dismissing the appeal, the court granted liberty to the company to respond to the show-cause notice within a fortnight and pursue remedies in accordance with law. It further expressed that, as a public authority, the competent authority is expected to act fairly and in accordance with principles of natural justice.

The court also directed that any adverse order passed shall remain inoperative for two weeks to enable the company to challenge it before the appropriate forum.