SC asks Calcutta High Court to ‘expeditiously’ hear Trinamool Congress plea over removal of billboard

Kolkata Municipal Corporation personnel removing the signboard that reads ‘All India Trinamool Congress’ from a building that houses TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee’s office, in Kolkata on August 27. | Photo Credit: ANI The Supreme Court on Monday (September 7, 2026) asked the Calcutta High Court to expeditiously hear a petition filed by the Trinamool Congress (TMC) challenging the removal of an allegedly unauthorised party billboard from the Kolkata office of its general secretary and MP Abhishek Banerjee on August 27 without prior notice.A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, however, declined to interfere with the High Court’s August 28 order refusing interim relief to the TMC, noting that the party’s contentions were still pending consideration before it.“Since the High Court is seized of the matter and there are tentative observations in the order of August 28, the parties are allowed to raise all contentions before the High Court, which will consider them expeditiously,” the Bench said.In its August 28 order, a single-judge Bench of the High Court had declined the TMC’s request to restore the billboard, observing that doing so would effectively amount to granting final relief at an interim stage. It had also refused the party’s plea for an injunction restraining the municipal authorities from taking any action in respect of the premises at 9, Camac Street.No prior noticeSenior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the TMC, told the Bench that the party had approached the High Court alleging that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation removed the billboard from its office without issuing any prior notice.“It is my building, and I am operating from there. It is natural that I will put up my billboard. The High Court should find out if notice has been issued to me. The court does not ask that question and says that now that the signboard has been removed, there is no cause of action,” Mr. Sibal submitted.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the West Bengal government, however, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the TMC’s plea before the Supreme Court. He submitted that the party had the option of filing a writ appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court, but had instead approached the top court directly.Mr. Sibal argued that the High Court’s observations had effectively prejudged the party’s pending petition. “The High Court says that no cause of action survives because the signboard has already been removed,” he said.The three-judge Bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, said the High Court’s observations were only tentative and that the party’s contentions remained open for consideration. “Observations are only tentative. We can ask the High Court to take a call on your pending petition,” the Bench said.The court accordingly disposed of the petition with a request to the High Court to consider “expeditiously” all contentions raised by the Trinamool Congress before the High Court.On the afternoon of August 27, Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) officials and workers, accompanied by personnel from the Shakespeare Sarani police station, arrived at the TMC office at 9, Camac Street, to remove an allegedly unauthorised billboard. Corporation officials were allegedly prevented from entering the premises, leading to a confrontation between TMC workers and the authorities.The High Court on August 28 declined to grant interim relief to the TMC, including its request for restoration of the billboard.“Though the petitioner would insist on restoration of the nameboard, I find that it is too premature to seek such a prayer. The same would tantamount to granting of a final relief at an interim stage, which is not permissible in law,” Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed.Justice Chowdhury also refused the TMC’s prayer for an injunction restraining the municipal authorities from taking any action in respect of the office premises at 9, Camac Street.“It is also well settled that an order cannot be passed on the basis of mere apprehension,” the court had observed. Published - September 07, 2026 05:49 pm IST