The Calcutta High Court has dismissed the appeal of the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR) over a denied stall at the Kolkata Book Fair, holding that the organising Guild does not perform a public function.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an intra-court appeal by the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR) and another against the refusal of a stall at the 48th International Kolkata Book Fair, upholding a single judge’s finding that the writ petition was not maintainable because the Publishers and Booksellers Guild, which organises the fair, is a private body that owes no public duty in doing so [Association for Protection of Democratic Rights and Another v. State of West Bengal and Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De held that the Guild’s stated aim of promoting literacy does not make the organising of a book fair a public function. The Court left open the separate question of judicial review of stall allotments, since APDR did not receive a stall and the fair had already concluded.
The case
The Guild, a registered society, declined to allot APDR a stall at the 48th edition of the fair. APDR moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. A single judge dismissed the writ petition on January 10, 2025, holding that the Guild is a private body performing no public function. APDR appealed (FMA No. 390 of 2025).
What the appellants argued
Senior Advocate Kaushik Gupta, for the appellants, argued that Article 226 has a wider scope than Article 32 and can reach private bodies that perform public functions. The appellants relied on BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar and Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani. They pointed out that the Guild’s memorandum lists the promotion of literacy and education among its objects, and that the use of public land, State support, infrastructure and police deployment gave the fair a public character.
What the respondents argued
The Guild’s counsel contended that it is a private society acting independently of government control, that the allotment of stalls lies within its private domain, and that it has no statutory obligation to hold the fair or to allot stalls to particular participants. The State was also represented.
What the Court said
The Bench held that a private body can fall within the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when it performs a public function or owes a public duty with a public law element, and that whether such a duty exists depends on the nature of the activity and the right of the person seeking relief. Applying that test, it observed:
“The Guild, therefore, while conducting and/or organizing, the book fair, does not owe any ‘public duty’ to anyone.”
The Court found that the Guild had not established or run a permanent educational institution, so the cases on the right to impart education did not apply. Promoting literacy was described as benevolent and philanthropic, but not as imparting education through institutions. It distinguished BCCI on the ground that the cricket board exercised a monopoly over the sport, whereas the Guild holds no monopoly on book fairs and other bodies organise them too.
“The organizing and/or conducting of book fair by the Guild is, therefore, not a ‘public function’.”
On State involvement, the Court held that patronage of the fair did not amount to delegating an essential State function to the Guild, that no statutory duty had been imposed on it, and that the State exercised no control over the fair. It also held that the Madras High Court’s decision in Kalachuvadu Publications v. Director, Directorate of Public Libraries was not good law and could be neither binding nor persuasive.
The outcome
The appeal was dismissed and the single judge’s order upheld. The pending application (CAN 1 of 2025) was disposed of, and there was no order as to costs. Because APDR was not allotted a stall and the 48th fair had already taken place, the Bench declined to decide whether stall allotments are open to judicial review.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Orders Seizure Of Book Allegedly Defaming Justice G R Swaminathan
Why the judgment matters
The ruling restates the limits of writ jurisdiction over private bodies: the question is whether the body performs a public function or owes a public duty, not whether its objects are worthy or whether it receives State patronage. A body that holds no monopoly and carries no delegated State function stays outside Article 226 for decisions such as the allotment of stalls.
The Division Bench expressed no view on the merits of APDR’s grievance that it had been unfairly excluded, and the Guild’s position that APDR lacked a regular registration certificate was not examined in the appeal.
Case Title: Association for Protection of Democratic Rights and Another v. State of West Bengal and Others [FMA No. 390 of 2025]
Bench: Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De, Calcutta High Court
Date of Judgment: October 6, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Kaushik Gupta with Advocates Jhuma Sen and Asmita De for the appellants; Advocate Raj Mohan Chattoraj for the State; S.R. Saha, Suman Kumar Mukherjee, Rishita Saha, Smriti Maulik and Sagar Kanojiya for the Guild