The has launched an inquiry into allegations of selective administration regarding the allocation of public space for festive stalls in West Bengal. During a session held on , Justice Saugata Bhattacharya directed the state authorities to provide a detailed report by the following day, clarifying why the was denied permission to set up a book stall outside its office during the ongoing Durga Puja celebrations, while other organizations were purportedly allowed to operate in the same vicinity.
The petition, brought forward by the CPIM, highlights a long-standing tradition of hosting a book stall outside their local office for over six decades. This year, however, the party claimed that they were effectively barred from erecting their temporary structure due to interference from a third party, the . The petitioner further contended that while they faced total obstruction, other groups—specifically the —were able to construct significant stages and installations in the same area without any intervention from local law enforcement or the municipal authorities.
During the hearing, Justice Bhattacharya expressed strong concern regarding the disparity in treatment, emphasizing that the state administration has a duty to act with impartiality, particularly when managing public land under the jurisdiction of the . “I don't deny that permission is needed. But if you are allowing one group then allow the others as well,” the Court remarked, underscoring the necessity of a level playing field for all political and social entities.
The state government, in its initial response, sought to challenge the of the petition. Counsel for the state argued that the core of the dispute was a technical matter regarding land use and the specific permission required to occupy PWD-controlled property. The state maintained that the current situation did not qualify as a failure of police inaction, suggesting that informing the police of an intent to occupy space is legally distinct from obtaining the formal, necessary clearances from the competent authorities. Furthermore, the state submitted that the activities of the were not part of the initial petition, and therefore, officials could not provide an immediate explanation for the status of those specific stalls during the current proceedings.
However, the Court dismissed the attempt to compartmentalize the issue, focusing instead on the broader implications of the alleged double standard. Justice Bhattacharya noted that if the petitioner was blocked from their traditional site while others were permitted to operate freely on the same road, the state must justify the criteria used for such disparate outcomes. The Court specifically scrutinized the visual evidence of existing stalls, questioning why a large structure erected by the was allowed to remain while the petitioner’s modest book stall was met with obstruction.
The legal discourse shifted toward the role of law enforcement in maintaining order and facilitating the exercise of basic rights. The Court asked why the refusal should not be interpreted as a failure of the police to provide necessary support, especially if the petitioner had been physically hindered from taking steps to set up their temporary stall. The state reiterated that both groups involved in the current friction had filed against each other, arguing that the police were managing the competing claims in accordance with the law. The Court countered that the police have a proactive role to play in ensuring that no party is arbitrarily restrained from exercising its activities, provided they comply with standard safety and traffic regulations.
Beyond the immediate conflict, the High Court emphasized the urgent need for a clear, uniform policy governing the installation of temporary structures on public thoroughfares. Without a consistent set of rules that applies equally to all organizations, the process of granting permissions becomes vulnerable to allegations of political favoritism. The Court suggested that the lack of transparent guidelines contributes to the very friction currently being litigated and that the state must ensure that space allocation is handled with administrative neutrality.
As the arguments concluded, the Court granted the CPIM liberty to file a . This document is expected to detail the factual sequence of events and provide the relevant documentation regarding their past and present attempts to secure a permit. The investigating officer has been ordered to submit a comprehensive report by , confirming whether other organizations currently occupying the road have obtained the requisite permissions or if they are operating in the same legally ambiguous state as the petitioners.
The matter remains active on the Court’s , with the next hearing scheduled for . The outcome of this case is expected to provide much-needed clarity on the standards of administrative fairness for public land usage in West Bengal. By demanding accountability from the state, the Court is seeking to prevent the stifling of political and organizational voices during the festival season, reinforcing the principle that public space must be accessible according to objective and consistent criteria rather than individual preference or political influence. For now, the parties await the submission of the investigative report, which will likely dictate whether the petitioner is granted the right to establish their stall for the remainder of the festivities.
public space usage - uniform permission policy - equitable administrative action - festival season permissions
