Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shubham Bhuwangiri Goswami vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 March, 2019
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
27.03.19
SL-67
Ct-08
(S.R.) W.P. No.4900 (W) of 2019
Shubham Bhuwangiri Goswami
v.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Pratik Dhar
Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari ... for the petitioner.
Ms. Sanchita Barman Roy
Mr. Pratick Sundar ... for UOI.
Mr. N. Ahmed
Ms. A. Sinha
... for the respondent nos.2 to 8 & 10.
The writ petition is taken up for consideration subsequent to the order dated March 20, 2019.
Learned advocate appearing for the Institute produces the materials on the basis of which, the impugned order was passed. She also produces the Closed Circuit Television (in short 'CCTV') footage, in a sealed pen drive.
CCTV footage produced by in the sealed pen drive is perused in Court.
The CCTV footage is also looked into by the learned 2 advocates for the petitioner, in Court.
Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the assumption of jurisdiction by the authority is incorrect. He refers to the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. He submits that, the incident happened at a restaurant. The same cannot be considered to be a workplace within the meaning of the Act of 2013 in relation to the complainant and the petitioner herein. Both the complainant and the petitioner are students of an Institute. The petitioner invited friends to a party at a restaurant. The complainant was also an institute. Such a restaurant cannot come within the meaning of the definition of a workplace and within the meaning of Act of 2013 for a Tribunal constituted under the Act of 2013 to assume jurisdiction and award punishment. He submits that, the impugned order does not consider the materials produced in correct perspective. Even after the incident, the complainant and the petitioner met each other in a cordial atmosphere. He refers to the photograph annexed to the writ petition in support of his contention. He submits that, the petitioner 3 is to join an internship commencing from April 1, 2019. Unless, further interim orders are granted, the career of the petitioner will be at stake and that, the prejudice suffered by the petitioner will be irreparable.
As noted above, the Institute is represented. None appears for the other parties.
At this stage, given the contents of the CCTV footage, it would not be proper to grant any further interim order. There subsists an order dated March 1, 2019 by which, the petitioner was allowed to take the examination. The authorities were directed not to publish the result of the examination until further orders of the Court. In the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to continue with such interim order till the disposal of the writ petition.
Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within four weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be field within two weeks thereafter.
Liberty is given to the parties to mention for early hearing.
4
Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)