Authority: Calcutta High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 06 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Appeal No. FMA 390 of 2025 (CAN 1 of 2025) filed by Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (the appellant) against the State of West Bengal and others, challenging the dismissal of writ petition WPA 587 of 2025 by a learned Single Judge on 10 January 2025.
  • The writ petition sought allocation of a stall to the appellant at the 48th edition of the International Kolkata Book Fair organized by the Publishers and Booksellers Guild (the Guild).
  • The Single Judge held the Guild to be a private body not performing a public duty; the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
  • The appellant argued that the Guild performs a public function by conducting the Book Fair, invoking Article 226 jurisdiction, and cited Supreme Court precedents: BCCI vs Cricket Assn of Bihar (2015), Janet Jeyapaul vs SRM University (2015), KK Saxena vs ICRD (2015), Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka (1992), among others.
  • The appellant highlighted the Guild’s Memorandum of Association clauses (3.2, 3.3, 3.6) promoting literacy and education, the preface of the Book Fair directory stating public educational objectives, and the substantial state aid (land, police, municipal services) suggesting a de‑facto monopoly and public function.
  • The State counsel contended that the Guild is a private society under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, operates voluntarily, and its stall allocation is a contractual matter outside public law; relied on Ajay Hasia, Madan Gopal Rungta, Andi Mukta Sadguru, and other Supreme Court decisions limiting writ jurisdiction to bodies performing public duties.
  • The Guild’s counsel echoed the State’s position, emphasizing the profit motive, lack of statutory control, and absence of any public duty.
  • The Court framed three questions: (i) whether the Guild’s functions constitute a public function; (ii) if so, whether the Guild is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226; (iii) whether stall allocation is reviewable under Article 226.
  • Extensive analysis of Supreme Court jurisprudence clarified that a body must have a positive public obligation or statutory control to attract writ jurisdiction; mere benevolent objectives or state‑provided infrastructure are insufficient.
  • The Court concluded that the Guild does not perform any public function, lacks statutory delegation, and therefore is not a ‘State’ or ‘other authority’ under Article 12 or a body performing a public duty.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that Question (i) is answered negatively: the Guild does not perform a public function while conducting the Book Fair.
  • Consequently, Question (ii) is also answered negatively: the Guild is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
  • Question (iii) becomes otiose as the Book Fair has already taken place and stall allocation is a private matter.
  • The appeal is dismissed; the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge are upheld and confirmed.
  • No order as to costs; CAN 1 of 2025 is disposed of.

Topics: Writ Jurisdiction, Public Function