The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) seeking to stop the removal of its temporary book stall near the Jadavpur Coffee House during Durga Puja, ruling that submitting an application and paying the prescribed fee to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) do not amount to permission to operate the stall.
Justice Partha Pratim Roy, hearing the case titled Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. State of West Bengal & Ors., held that the party could not claim legal protection without establishing that it had received explicit authorisation to set up the 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.
Application and payment did not establish permission
The CPI(M) approached the High Court after a group of people, allegedly associated with the KMC and accompanied by a large police contingent and a bulldozer, attempted to remove the stall on October 17.
The party has operated the temporary book stall in front of the Jadavpur Coffee House during Durga Puja for the past 49 years. Seeking to continue the practice this year, it submitted an application for permission to the office of the Assistant Director, SWM-I, Borough X, of the KMC.
The party also paid ₹3,208 to the concerned municipal department towards the application. In addition, a letter was sent to the officer-in-charge of the nearby police station.
However, the court noted that the application had been submitted on September 19, 2026, and the payment had been made towards obtaining permission, but neither action established that the required authorisation had been granted.
“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,” Justice Roy observed.
High Court relies on earlier Division Bench ruling
Justice Roy relied on an earlier order passed by a Division Bench in MAT 1881 of 2026, which laid down that a party seeking judicial protection for a stall must first establish that it has valid permission to operate it.
Applying that principle, the court concluded that the CPI(M) was not entitled to the relief it had sought because no explicit permission had been granted for the Jadavpur book stall. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Advocate Abhijit Mondal appeared for the CPI(M) in the proceedings.