Only Because Any Event Has Gained Popularity It Can’t Be Termed As Public Event & Authority Organizing It Can’t Be Treated As 'State': Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court was considering a Writ Petition filed by the Vishva Hindu Parishad with a plea that a direction be passed to the Publishers and Booksellers Guild to permit the petitioner to set up a stall in the 48th International Kolkata Book Fair.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a petition of the Vishva Hindu Parishad seeking allotment of a stall in the 48th International Kolkata Book Fair held by the Publishers and Booksellers Guild and clarified that the Guild cannot be treated as ‘the State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution.
The High Court was considering a Writ Petition filed by the Vishva Hindu Parishad with a plea that necessary direction be passed to the Guild to permit the petitioner to set up a stall in 48th International Kolkata Book Fair.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Amrita Sinha asserted, “The fair held by the Guild may be highly popular and may attract maximum footfall but only because an event has gained such amount of popularity the same cannot be termed as a public event and the authority organising the said event cannot be treated as ‘other authorities’ under Article 12 of the Constitution.”
Senior Advocate Subir Sanyal represented the Petitioner while Advocate General Kishore Datta represented the Respondent-State.
Factual Background
The Honorary Vice President of the Petitioner Society had applied for allotment of a stall in the 48th International Kolkata Book Fair which is to be held from January 28, 2025 to February 9, 2025. An application was made by the Parishad with request to provide a stall of 600 sq.ft. As no response was forthcoming from the Publishers and Booksellers Guild, the instant writ petitione had been filed.
Issues
The issues raised before the Bench were whether the writ petition would be maintainable against the Guild and whether the petitioner was entitled to relief.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, observed that Kolkata is widely known and recognised for literary works. Similar fairs and events, which may not be of the same scale, are organized in various parts of the State. The petitioners would be hardly prejudiced if they could not participate in the subject fair. The petitioners can always showcase their books and news articles elsewhere and there is absolutely no restriction in doing so.
“A private entity certainly has the right to select and choose the participants in its own function as per its own preference and none has a vested right to intrude upon and claim participation against the wish and desire of the organizer. It will be an absolute anomaly if the State is permitted or directed to interfere and meddle in the affairs of a private party. The same is illegal, impermissible and cannot be supported in law”, it said while also adding, “The State Legal Services Authority has also been provided space in the fair. The same does not mean that the fair becomes the event of the State or the fair is in any manner controlled by the State.”
“Only because foreign dignitaries are participants in the fair and the fair has gained immense popularity, it does not mean that the organiser of the fair has to be elevated and transposed to the status of a body ‘akin to the State”, it further held. The Bench also asserted, “The parties are more or less ad idem on the issue that the Guild cannot be treated as ‘the State’ but the Guild qualifies under the expression ‘local or other authority’ and their functions are akin to the State.”
Emphasizing that all wrong cannot be cured by the writ Court, the Bench held that the Constitution prescribes the areas where writ remedy is available. However, the same does not imply that an aggrieved party will remain remediless. Private law remedy is always open.
Dismissing the Petition, the Bench concluded, “The parties have advanced argument on the issue whether the petitioner no.1 can be treated as a publisher or not but the Court consciously refrains from deliberating on that issue leaving it open for the parties to agitate the same before the appropriate forum.”
Cause Title: Vishva Hindu Parishad, Dakshinbanga & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (Case No.: WPA No. 1373 of 2025)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Subir Sanyal, Advocates Partha Sarathi Deb Barman, Osman Mallick, Sumouli Sarkar, Anindya Sundar Das, Sourojit Mukherjee, Anup Dasgupta, Syed Ali Afzal, Paromita Mondal, Suman Halder, Pronoy Basak, Sujit Bhuniya, Bipul Mondal, Dinesh Pari, Sagnik Roychowdhury, Avijit Mitra
Respondents: Advocate General Kishore Datta,GP Anirban Ray, Senior Advocate Anirudhha Chatterjee, Advocates Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Anand Farmania, Indumoli Banerjee, Suprotim Laha, Suman Kumar Mukherjee, A.D. Mullick, Esha Majumder, B. Sadhu, Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Arka Kumar Nag, Tirthankar Dey
