Click the Play button to listen to article

The Calcutta High Court has stayed a Single Judge's order directing the police to protect the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPIM) from obstruction while setting up a book stall near its party office in Bongaon during Durga Puja, observing that the party had not sought permission from the competent authority to erect the stall.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi passed the interim order on October 16 while hearing an appeal filed by the West Bengal government against the Single Judge's order.

The Bench noted that the CPIM had only intimated the Public Works (Roads) Directorate about its intention to set up the stall through an email dated October 6, 2026, but had not specifically sought permission for its erection.

“We also record that any party, who approaches the Court, will have to first establish whether the said party has a permission for erecting a stall,” the Bench observed.

The Court further noted that the email had not been brought to the Single Judge's attention. It said the document could have assisted the Single Judge in determining whether permission from the PWD authorities was required and whether the writ petition fell within the court's roster assignment concerning land matters or police inaction.

The Bench observed that withholding the email amounted to suppression of material information, emphasising that litigants must disclose all relevant material when approaching a court for relief.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgments in *Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh* and *Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society*, the Bench noted that litigants cannot selectively disclose information and must leave it to the court to assess the material in accordance with law.

“Prima facie, we find that 'X-1' was a document, which would have shed light before the learned Single Judge in order to decide whether it had jurisdiction,” the order stated.

The Bench also observed that the location of the CPIM office was on a State Highway and that the police authorities prima facie had no jurisdiction to deal with an application seeking permission to erect a book stall there.

The Court clarified that its observations were based on the material available at the interim stage.

Police Asked To Verify Permission For Another Stall

During the proceedings, the CPIM also contended that another stall had been erected directly in front of its office.

The Bench noted that the party running the other stall had not been before the Single Judge, as it had not been served in the writ petition.

Taking note of the State's submission that the stall had already been erected, the Court asked the Additional Advocate General to ensure that the police authorities ascertain whether permission had been granted for it.

The Bench said that if no permission had been sought and granted, immediate steps should be initiated to remove the stall.

The Court also observed that it would not be persuaded merely by an argument that roadside book stalls during Sharodotsav or Durga Puja had been operating for decades without permission.


To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE