Court holds that mere application and fee payment do not confer right without formal permission; petitioner's stall dismantling upheld as lawful
In a significant ruling delivered on 20th October 2026, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) seeking protection against the forcible removal and dismantling of their temporary bookstall erected in front of the Jadavpur Coffee House during Durga Puja festivities. The petitioner had challenged the actions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) and police authorities, alleging illegal removal of the stall without due process.
The petitioner, a political organization, has a history of setting up a bookstall during Durga Puja for the past 49 years to disseminate literature and political viewpoints. For the 2026 Puja, the CPI(M) had applied for permission on 19th September 2026 to the Assistant Director of Solid Waste Management (SWM)-I, Borough-X, KMC, for erecting a temporary stall measuring 16 feet by 20 feet from 13th to 22nd October 2026. They also deposited a municipal charge of Rs. 3,208 and sent communications to the police station, seeking to notify authorities of the stall setup.
Despite these steps, on 17th October 2026, KMC officials accompanied by a police contingent and equipped with a bulldozer arrived at the site and attempted to remove the stall. The CPI(M) then filed the writ petition seeking:
- - A mandamus restraining respondents from dismantling the stall without lawful authority,
- - Certiorari to produce records justifying removal,
- - Direction to consider their application and payment, and
- - Interim relief to stay demolition.
The Court, presided over by Justice Partha Pratim Roy, examined the facts and relevant law. It observed that while the petitioner had applied for permission and paid fees to KMC, the receipt explicitly stated that such acceptance was subject to police permission. Importantly, the petitioner admitted that no actual permission had been granted by either the municipal or police authorities to run the bookstall.
Relying on a recent Division Bench judgment in a similar case involving the same petitioner, the Court reiterated the settled legal position that no person can claim a right to operate a stall in a public place without valid permission. The Court emphasized that an application and fee payment alone do not confer any enforceable right. Therefore, in the absence of such permission, the petitioner was not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction to restrain lawful municipal or police action.
The Court thus dismissed the writ petition, holding that the removal of the stall was lawful. However, it made no order as to costs. The Court also directed that certified copies of the order be supplied on compliance with formalities.
This judgment underscores the mandatory nature of obtaining formal permissions from competent authorities before erecting temporary stalls in public spaces, especially during festivals. It also clarifies that courts will not protect unauthorized encroachments on public property, regardless of prior practice or fee deposits.
Bottom Line:
Temporary bookstall on public place - Mere application for permission and deposit of municipal charges do not confer any right to continue stall - In absence of actual permission, petitioner is not entitled to protection against removal or demolition - Person approaching Court must first establish valid permission for erecting stall.
Statutory provision(s):
Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226
Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2999795
