The Calcutta High Court has stayed a Single Judge’s order directing police to protect the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) while setting up a temporary book stall near Jessore Road in Bongaon during Durga Puja. The Division Bench questioned why an email sent to the Public Works Department (PWD) had not been disclosed earlier and observed that the document was relevant to determining which court had jurisdiction over the dispute.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi passed the interim order on October 16, 2026, in an appeal filed by the Superintendent of Police, Bongaon Police District, and another officer.
Background
The dispute arose after CPI(M) approached the High Court seeking police protection to establish and operate its temporary book stall during the festive period from October 16 to October 21, 2026. The party claimed that it had been running such a stall for years but was being prevented from doing so, even as other stalls were allowed in the area.
On October 15, the Single Judge directed the police to maintain public order and facilitate the book stall within 100 metres of the proposed location. The State challenged that order, raising the question of whether the matter fell under Group-I, concerning land-related disputes, or Group-IX, covering residual matters under the High Court’s roster.
During the appeal, the Bench examined an email dated October 6, 2026, sent by CPI(M)’s Bongaon Town Area to the Executive Engineer of National Highway Division-V, PWD. The email informed the department about the proposed stall but did not seek specific permission to establish it. Counsel for the party acknowledged that no permission had been sought, apart from sending the intimation.
The Bench questioned why this document had not been placed before the Single Judge, observing:
“It is a matter of serious circumspection as to why ‘X-1’, which is an e-mail dated 06.10.2026, was not cited before the learned Single Judge. This document would have enabled the learned Single Judge to assess whether any intimation or permission was required from the P.W.D. Department. If that would have been shown, it would have been open to the learned Single Judge to decide whether the jurisdiction would lay before the Court entrusted with the Group – I Determination. This amounts to suppression of material information.”
The Bench referred to Supreme Court rulings on the obligation of litigants to disclose relevant material when seeking judicial relief. It noted that withholding information could affect the court’s consideration of a case.
The judges also addressed the allegation that another stall had been erected in front of the party office. The Bench asked the State to ascertain whether the stall had the required permission. It directed that, if permission had neither been sought nor granted, immediate steps should be taken to remove it.
The Court emphasised that parties approaching the judiciary over such disputes must first establish whether they have permission to erect a stall.
The Division Bench stayed the Single Judge’s order granting protection to the CPI(M) book stall. It clarified that the question of jurisdiction, including whether the dispute falls under Group-I or Group-IX, would be decided at the final hearing.
The Court issued notice to the respondents for a final hearing on January 21, 2027. The appeal remains pending.
