The has stayed an earlier order that directed police protection for the to establish a temporary bookstall during the Durga Puja festival in Bongaon, North 24 Parganas. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi issued the on , finding that the party failed to disclose crucial information regarding their attempts to secure formal permission from the relevant infrastructure authorities. The ruling effectively halts the operation of the stall for the remainder of the festive period.
The dispute originated from a filed by the CPI(M) before a learned Single Judge, seeking a mandate to compel local police authorities to allow the erection of a temporary bookstall along Jessore Road. On , the Single Judge had granted the request, directing the Superintendent of Police, , to facilitate the setup within 100 meters of the party’s local office. The State of West Bengal promptly appealed this decision, raising critical questions regarding whether the subject matter—pertaining to the use of public land—fell within the court’s jurisdictional determination for land-related laws or if it belonged to the assigned to other benches.
Procedural Omissions and Judicial Scrutiny
During the appeal hearing, the Division Bench scrutinized the transparency of the petitioner’s application. It emerged that the CPI(M) had sent an email to the on , as an intimation of their intent to set up the stall, but had failed to formally apply for, or receive, necessary clearance. This document, marked as ‘X-1’ for identification, was never placed before the Single Judge. The failure to present this evidence prevented the lower court from properly evaluating whether permission from the was a prerequisite for the stall’s legality and whether the case consequently fell under the purview of land-related legal determination.
The Division Bench emphasized the ethical and legal duty of litigants to be transparent with the court. Chief Justice Ghuge, noting the gravity of the omission, stated in the order: “Holding back information amounts to and even if a litigant has a good case, the Court should refuse relief even to such a litigant and deal with such a litigant sternly.” The court relied on settled precedents, including the Supreme Court’s observations in and , to reaffirm that parties seeking must provide a complete and accurate disclosure of all relevant documents.
Enforcement of Regulatory Standards
The state government had contended that the proposed site was on a state highway, a location where the police have no inherent jurisdiction to grant permission for commercial or political structures. By failing to seek authorization from the PWD, the petitioners were, in the view of the court, attempting to bypass established regulatory frameworks under the guise of an urgent writ for police protection.
The further observed that the practice of setting up roadside stalls during the festivities without explicit permission for decades did not grant a to ignore current compliance standards. The Chief Justice remarked on the nature of legal equality, questioning why the state should facilitate an act that might otherwise be deemed an . The court clarified that the responsibility for maintaining public order does not extend to protecting activities that have not been vetted by the competent land or road authorities.
Investigations into Existing Encroachments
During the proceedings, the CPI(M) alleged that another organization had managed to erect a stall at the same location, suggesting discriminatory treatment by the authorities. While the Division Bench stayed the order allowing the CPI(M) to proceed, it did not turn a blind eye to these allegations of unequal enforcement. The court directed the to instruct the Bongaon Police to verify the legality of the other existing stalls in the area.
The Division Bench explicitly ordered that if these structures were found to be operating without proper authorization, the authorities must initiate immediate steps for their removal. “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 order noted, underscoring the court’s commitment to consistent application of the law regardless of the political affiliation of the stall organizers.
Path Toward Final Adjudication
The current interim order serves as a temporary measure until the of jurisdiction and the merits of the petitioner's rights can be fully heard. By staying the Single Judge’s order, the Division Bench has ensured that the is maintained while the procedural irregularities are corrected. The court has scheduled the final hearing for the appeal on .
At the final hearing, the is expected to definitively resolve whether the dispute over political bookstalls on public land should be classified under the Group-I category (land laws) or the Group-IX category ( ). The court will also examine the extent to which the observations made by the Single Judge regarding political ideology and free expression remain applicable in light of the initial failure to disclose material documentation. For now, the legal mandate remains clear: the right to express political or ideological views through public installations does not absolve any party from the fundamental requirement of obtaining valid permission from the appropriate government agencies. The police authorities are instructed to act strictly in accordance with the law, ensuring that no unauthorized structures remain on the state highway pending further verification.
undisclosed material facts - jurisdictional roster allocation
