The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday dismissed the Communist Party of India (Marxist)’s [CPI(M)] plea to halt the removal and dismantling of a temporary book stall near the Jadavpur coffee house during Durga Puja despite making the requisite application and paying a fee to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) [Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. State of West Bengal & Ors.].
Justice Partha Pratim Roy observed that making the requisite application and paying the fee to the local authorities for operating a temporary book stall is not enough without explicit permission for operating such a stall.
“In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in MAT 1881 of 2026, a person who approaches the Court will have to be first established whether the said party has a permission for erecting a stall or not. Therefore, the protection as sought for by the petitioner requires establishing, that they had a valid permission to run the bookstall. In the present case, such permission is absent. In view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Division Bench, the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for,”the Court said.
CPI(M) moved the Court after some people, allegedly belonging to the KMC and accompanied by a large police contingent and a bulldozer, attempted to remove the stall on October 17.
CPI(M) had been operating the temporary book stall in front of the Jadavpur coffee house during Durga Puja for the last 49 years.
Keeping up with the same practice, they applied for permission to set up the book stall to the office of Assistant Director SWM-I, Borough – X, Kolkata Municipal Corporation. A fee amounting to ₹3,208 was also paid to the concerned KMC department in this regard.
A letter to that effect was also sent to the concerned officer-in-charge of the nearby police station .
After examining the facts of the case, the Court observed,
“Running of the aforesaid bookstall an application for permission was also made on 19th September, 2026 and an amount was also deposited with the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for grant of such permission. Therefore, by the aforesaid acts of the petitioner, itself proves that obtaining permission is mandatory before running of the bookstall, and therefore, such application was made. The receipt showing of depositing money was accepted subject to police permission. In the present case, it is admitted fact that no permission was granted to the petitioner for running the bookstall.”
Placing reliance on a similar order, Justice Roy dismissed the case holding that the CPI(M) was not entitled to the reliefs prayed for since no explicit permission was granted.
Advocate Abhijit Mondal appeared for CPI(M).
CPIM vs. State of West Bengal.pdf
Preview
