Can a group that put up a stall without permission demand a probe into its Demolition Of Book Stall? The Calcutta High Court has held that no fundamental right was shown to have been violated, dismissing the rights group’s writ petition.
Kolkata: No fundamental right of the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR) had been shown to be violated, the Calcutta High Court held on November 10 while dismissing its writ petition for an independent, time-bound inquiry into the demolition of its temporary book stall on October 19, 2026, after finding that the stall had been put up without any permission [Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR) v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.].
Justice Rishad Medora passed the order, leaving the organisation free to pursue any other remedies available to it.
The operative finding
The Court held:
“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 clarified that since no affidavit had been called for, the allegations in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. It dismissed the petition with liberty to APDR to pursue other remedies in respect of the demolition, and made no order as to costs.
What the petition said
According to the petition, APDR had applied to the authorities for permission to set up a temporary book stall. No permission was granted. Treating the authorities’ silence as no objection, the organisation erected the stall on October 17, 2026. It was demolished soon after, and the petitioner said it did not know who had pulled it down.
APDR sought an inquiry into the demolition and compensation for its loss. Its main grievance, the Court noted, was that a representation dated October 21, 2026 had not been considered, and it asked for a direction to decide that representation.
The State’s objection
Senior Advocate Piyush Chaturvedi, appearing for the State respondents and the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, submitted that directing consideration of the representation would be futile, since the stall had been erected without any permission. The Court accepted this submission.
Why the order matters
The order reaffirms that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not ordinarily available to someone who sets up a structure on the assumption that official silence amounts to permission. Where no permission exists, the High Court found no enforceable right to an inquiry or to have a representation decided.
At the same time, the Court did not decide who demolished the stall or whether the demolition was lawful. By recording that the allegations are not admitted and leaving other remedies open, it left any claim for compensation to be pursued in an appropriate forum.
Case Title: Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR) v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. [WPA 31420 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Rishad Medora, Calcutta High Court
Date of Order: November 10, 2026
For the Petitioner: Advocates Debangana Dey and Bhaskar Roy
For the KMC: Senior Advocate Piyush Chaturvedi with Advocate Nilanjan Chatterjee
For the State: Government Pleader D.N. Roy; Senior Advocate Piyush Chaturvedi with Advocates Anindya Basu and Indradeep Pal