Calcutta High Court: A petition was filed by Visva Hindu Parishad (petitioner 1), a registered society engaged in social, religious, and philanthropic activities, and its Honorary Vice President (petitioner 2) seeking mandamus against the Publishers and Booksellers Guild (“the Guild”) claiming that their application for a 600 sq. ft. stall at the book fair was ignored without any communication from the Guild. Amrita Sinha, J., dismissed the petition as it does not appear that the Guild is infringing upon any of the rights of the petitioners as it is not standing in the way of the petitioners from publishing their books or newspapers.
The Court held “All wrong cannot be cured by the writ Court. 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.“
The petitioner 1 is a Society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 and the petitioner 2 claims to be the Honorary Vice President of the petitioner 1. The petitioner 1 claims to be a social, religious and philanthropic organization aimed at consolidating and strengthening the global Hindu fraternity and working for the welfare of humanity. The Society claims to promote educational activity and provide medical aid and relief to the poor. The petitioner 1 claims to be a seller and publisher of several books and magazines. Visva Hindu Varta, the monthly magazine of the Parishad, is registered under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The Society claims to sell around eight hundred different books as well as posters and calendars. The Society, since 2011, is a regular participant in the International Kolkata Book Fair held annually. It sets up stall in the said fair for selling books and magazines.
In response to an advertisement published by the Publishers and Booksellers Guild (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Guild’) seeking interested participants to apply in their letterhead for allotment of stall in the 48th International Kolkata Book Fair to be held from 28-01-2025 to 9-02-2025, application was made by the petitioner 2, within the time as stipulated in the advertisement, with request to provide a stall of 600 sq.ft. As no communication was made about the application filed by the petitioner, a request for intimation about the allotment of stall was made by the petitioner 2 in January, 2025. As no response was forthcoming, the instant writ petitioner was filed.
Counsel for petitioners submitted that the Guild, though a private entity, is significantly funded and supported by the State, making it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They contended that the Book Fair has assumed a public character due to State sponsorship and financial aid, making the Guild’s actions subject to constitutional scrutiny. The refusal to allot a stall was alleged to be discriminatory, arbitrary, and in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21.
Counsel for State countered that it merely provided infrastructural support for the fair and had no control over the Guild’s decisions. It was asserted that the Guild remains a private body outside the purview of Article 12, and the writ petition was not maintainable. The Guild, in its submissions, reinforced this stance, emphasizing that it functions independently and has the discretion to regulate participant selection. The Guild pointed to a 2024 resolution stating that no organization would be allotted a stall, which was the basis for rejecting the petitioners’ application.
Relying on Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2015) 3 SCC 251, the Court noted that the clinching difference between BCCI and the fair is the mode and way the two authorities’ function. The former is the sole authority to take decisions and handle sports events throughout the country and beyond. Its decision may make or break a player’s sporting career. The authority is the only gateway to represent the country at the international level. Such is not the case in respect of the fair. Kolkata is widely known and recognized for literary works. There are similar fairs and events, may not be of the same scale, organized in various parts of the State. The petitioners would be hardly prejudiced if they are not able to 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. The petitioners can also take and spread their ideas, thoughts and belief at a national and international level in any manner according to their choice.
The Court further noted that 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. The Court remarked that “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 must be elevated and transposed to the status of a body ‘akin to the State’. There are instances where events organized by the State do not draw enough crowds, nevertheless, the said event will be treated as a state function as the same was organized by the State. The magnanimous scale, popularity or footfall are not the tests to ascertain whether the event is a public event or a private one.”
The Court concluded that it is not the case that if the petitioners are not allotted any stall in the fair, then their right to business or their freedom of speech or expression will be infringed in any manner. The book fair is just a platform from where the participants get an opportunity to advertise their books or magazines. The petitioners can always avail other platforms to advertise their works. The Guild does not hold any monopoly for organising such fair. Book fairs are held by several other bodies and organizations. There may be valid reasons and legitimate expectation of the petitioners that as they were allotted stall for the past so many years, this year also stall will be allotted in their favour. The petitioners may feel that they have been wronged.
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition and held that the writ petition was not maintainable against the Guild as the fair 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.
[Vishva Hindu Parishad v. State of West Bengal, WPA No. 1373 of 2025, decided on 24-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the writ petitioners:- Mr. Subir Sanyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Partha Sarathi Deb Barman, Adv. Mr. Osman Mallick, Adv. Ms. Sumouli Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Anindya Sundar Das, Adv. Mr. Sourojit Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Anup Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Syed Ali Afzal, Adv. Ms. Paromita Mondal, Adv. Mr. Suman Halder, Adv. Mr. Pronoy Basak, Adv. Mr. Sujit Bhuniya, Adv. Mr. Bipul Mondal, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Pari, Adv. Mr. Sagnik Roychowdhury, Adv. Mr. Avijit Mitra, Adv.
For the State:- Mr. Kishore Datta, Ld. AG Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. GP Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Adv. Mr. Anand Farmania, Adv. Ms. Indumoli Banerjee, Adv.
For the respondent nos. 8:- Mr. Anirudhha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. & 9 Mr. Suprotim Laha, Adv. Mr. Suman Kumar Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. A.D. Mullick, Adv. Ms. Esha Majumder, Adv. Mr. B. Sadhu, Adv.
For the BMC:- Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Adv. Mr. Arka Kumar Nag, Adv. Mr. Tirthankar Dey, Adv.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
