Calcutta High Court
WPA/23847/2026 of KAJAL CHOUBEY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 9 September 2026
16 sdas WPA 23847 of 2026 Sri Kajal Choubey Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Goutam Pathak Banerjee Mr. Manujendra Narayan Roy Mr. Gourav Haldar ….. for the petitioner Mr. Piush Chaturvedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anujit Mookherji ….. for the State Mrs. Amita Gaur Mr. Soumen
09.09.2026
sdas
WPA 23847 of 2026
Sri Kajal Choubey
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Goutam Pathak Banerjee
Mr. Manujendra Narayan Roy
Mr. Gourav Haldar
….. for the petitioner
Mr. Piush Chaturvedi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anujit Mookherji
….. for the State
Mrs. Amita Gaur
Mr. Soumen Chatterjee
….. for the respondent no. 4
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Let affidavit-of-service, as filed in Court, be kept on record.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with a proceeding under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the POSH Act, 2013) on several grounds including the procedural infirmity of such proceeding.
3. Mr. Chaturvedi, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, submits that the writ petition should not be entertained at this stage, since the findings of the Enquiry Committee under the POSH Act, 2013 has been challenged in a proceeding pending before the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal being OA No. 79 of 2026.
4. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench being WPST 209 of 2025 with WPST 210 of 2025 (Anindya Sundar Das vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), this writ petition cannot be entertained as the application pending before the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal is on the selfsame cause of action.
5. At this juncture, Mr. Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, prays for leave to withdraw the writ petition.
6. Such leave is granted.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
8. Petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps to pursue his remedies.
(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)