The Calcutta High Court has declined to order an independent investigation into the demolition of a temporary book stall belonging to the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR) near Jadavpur 8B Bus Stand during Durga Puja celebrations.
Justice Rishad Medora dismissed the organisation’s petition, holding that the demolition did not involve a violation of its fundamental rights warranting intervention under the Court’s writ jurisdiction, as the stall had been set up without the requisite permission.
However, the Court clarified that APDR remained free to pursue other remedies available under the law to seek an enquiry into the incident.
“It does not appear that any fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated for it to approach this Court in its writ jurisdiction,” the Court observed. It also clarified that since no affidavit had been sought from the respondents, the allegations in the petition could not be treated as admitted.
The case arose from an incident during Durga Puja when individuals allegedly identifying themselves as Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) officials, accompanied by a large police contingent, entered the area and forcibly dismantled APDR’s temporary book stall.
According to the organisation, the demolition took place without prior notice, a written order or any formal communication explaining the action.
APDR maintained that it had approached the Joint Commissioner of Police and the Assistant Director of Borough X of the KMC seeking permission to establish and operate the stall. It also claimed to have deposited the prescribed municipal fee.
The organisation argued that none of the authorities had communicated any objection or rejection of its application before the stall was demolished.
Following the incident, APDR submitted representations to the State Home Minister, the Municipal Commissioner, the Inspector General of Police and the Vigilance Authority, seeking an investigation and accountability for the demolition. It alleged that these complaints failed to produce any meaningful response.
Through its petition, the organisation sought a direction requiring the authorities to examine its representations and initiate an impartial, time-bound enquiry to identify those responsible. It also sought compensation for the financial losses suffered following the destruction of the stall.
Opposing the plea, the State government argued that the organisation had never received formal permission to set up the book stall. It contended that judicial consideration of the representations would serve no useful purpose in the absence of such approval.
The Court ultimately declined to order an investigation or grant the compensation sought by APDR, while leaving the organisation at liberty to explore other available legal remedies.
Case: Association for Protection of Democratic Rights v. State of West Bengal and Others
Advocates Debangana Dey and Bhaskar Roy appeared for APDR. Senior Advocate Piyush Chaturvedi, assisted by Advocate Nilanjan Chatterjee, represented the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
The State was represented by Government Pleader DN Roy, along with Advocates Anindya Basu and Indradeep Pal.