An Application and Fee Deposit Do Not Equal Permission to Run a Stall, Rules Calcutta High Court

An Application and Fee Deposit Do Not Equal Permission to Run a Stall, Rules Calcutta High Court in Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. State of West Bengal

Case: Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 20 October 2026
Court: Calcutta High Court
Coram: Justice Partha Pratim Roy

Court Observation

“For running the bookstall, an application for permission was made on September 19, and an amount was also deposited with the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for grant of such permission. Therefore, the acts of the petitioner itself prove that obtaining permission is mandatory before running the bookstall, and therefore, such an application was made.”

Summary

The Communist Party of India (Marxist)’s Jadavpur 1 Area Committee approached the High Court seeking protection against an alleged attempt by Kolkata Municipal Corporation officials — accompanied by police and a bulldozer — to dismantle its temporary Durga Puja bookstall outside Jadavpur Coffee House, a tradition it said had run for 49 years. The party had applied to the Corporation for permission on 19 September 2026 and deposited Rs. 3,208, but no permission had actually been granted — the receipt was issued subject to police approval.

Justice Partha Pratim Roy dismissed the petition, holding that an application and a fee deposit do not confer a right to operate a stall without explicit permission.

Key Holdings

  • Filing an application and paying the prescribed fee cannot, by themselves, be treated as sufficient grounds to claim judicial protection against the removal of a temporary structure.
  • A party approaching the court for protection against removal must first establish that it possesses the necessary permission to erect or operate the stall.
  • The petitioner’s own act of applying for permission proved that obtaining permission was mandatory before running the bookstall.
  • Following the law declared by the Division Bench in MAT 1881 of 2026: in the absence of permission, the writ petitioner was entitled to no relief.
  • The admitted fact that no permission had been granted — the receipt being subject to police approval — defeated the claim.

Background

The party said it had run the bookstall during Durga Puja for 49 years, and planned a 16-foot-by-20-foot stall for 13 to 22 October 2026. It applied to the office of the Assistant Director, SWM-I, Borough X of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation on 19 September 2026, deposited Rs. 3,208, and wrote to the officer-in-charge of the Jadavpur police station. On 17 October, municipal officials with a large police contingent and a bulldozer allegedly attempted to remove the stall. The party moved the High Court seeking a restraint order and a direction to decide its permission application.

Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.