The Calcutta High Court rejected the Communist Party of India (Marxist)’s request to stop authorities from removing a temporary book stall near Jadavpur coffee house during Durga Puja. Justice Partha Pratim Roy noted that merely applying and paying fees to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) does not suffice without explicit permission to operate the stall, as required by law.
Justice Partha Pratim Roy noted that the petitioner will have to establish whether they had a valid permission to run the bookstall. In this case, such permission was absent. The Court stated that 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 CPI(M) had been operating the temporary book stall in front of the Jadavpur coffee house during Durga Puja for the last 49 years. They applied for permission to set up the book stall and paid a fee of ₹3,208 to the concerned KMC department.
Read Also: YSRCP challenges election violence blocking nominations
A letter was also sent to the concerned officer-in-charge of the nearby police station. However, the Court observed that the receipt showing the deposit of money was accepted subject to police permission, and no permission was granted to the CPI(M) for running the bookstall. It was noted that the application for permission was made on 19th September, 2026, and an amount was deposited with the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for the grant of such permission.
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 the CPI(M) in the case. The Court’s decision was based on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in MAT 1881 of 2026, which requires a person to establish that they have permission for erecting a stall before seeking protection from the Court.
The CPI(M) had 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, prompting the party to seek relief. The Court’s observation that obtaining permission is mandatory before running the bookstall was key in determining the outcome of the case.
