The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPIM) seeking protection against the alleged attempt by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and police to demolish its temporary bookstall near Jadavpur Coffee House, holding that the party had failed to establish that it had permission to operate the stall.

Justice Partha Pratim Roy held that a party approaching the Court for protection against the removal of a stall must first establish that it had obtained the requisite permission.

“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 permission for erecting a stall or not,” the Court observed.

The Court added that the protection sought by the CPIM required it to establish that it had valid permission to operate the bookstall. Since no such permission had been granted in the present case, the party was not entitled to the reliefs sought.

The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Background

The CPIM's Jadavpur 1 Area Committee approached the High Court alleging that municipal officials, accompanied by a substantial police contingent and a bulldozer, had attempted to remove its temporary bookstall on October 17 at around 6:30 pm.

The party submitted that it had been organising the bookstall in front of Jadavpur Coffee House during Durga Puja for the past 49 years. For 2026, it proposed to operate the stall from October 13 to October 22, measuring 16 feet by 20 feet.

According to the petition, the party had applied to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for permission on September 19 and informed the Officer-in-Charge of Jadavpur Police Station about its proposed stall. It had also deposited ₹3,208 with the municipal corporation towards the temporary installation.

The party sought directions restraining the authorities from forcibly removing or dismantling the stall except in accordance with law. It also sought a direction to the municipal authorities to consider its application and pass a reasoned decision if any issue concerning permission remained unresolved.

However, the Court noted that the payment receipt had been accepted subject to police permission and that no permission had ultimately been granted for operating the bookstall.

Justice Roy relied on an earlier Division Bench ruling in *The Superintendent of Police, Bongaon Police District & Anr. v. Communist Party of India (Marxist) & Ors.*, concerning a separate CPIM bookstall dispute.

In that case, the Division Bench had observed that the police authorities should ascertain whether permission had been granted for erecting the stall and initiate immediate steps for its removal if no permission had been sought and granted.

The Bench had further recorded that any party approaching the Court must first establish that it had permission to erect the stall.

Applying that principle, the single judge held that the CPIM had failed to establish the necessary permission in the present case and was therefore not entitled to judicial protection against the proposed removal.