IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak

And

The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

MAT/1495/2025

With

IA NO: CAN/1/2025, CAN/2/2025

ANINDITA DAS

VS

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

For the Appellant : Mr. Sankar Prasad Dalapati, Advocate

Ms. Asumdipta Santra, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Asish Kumar Guha, Advocate

Mr. Rajendra Chaturvedi, Advocate

For the Private Respondent: Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty, Advocate

Mr. Anindya Halder, Advocate

Heard & Judgment on: September 22, 2025

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.

1. Appeal is directed against an order dated May 15, 2025 passed in WPA

13750 of 2023.

2. By the impugned order learned Single Judge disposed of the writ

petition by holding that, “Having regard to the nature of the dispute, I

am of the prima facie opinion that there is a difference between the school administration and the present petitioner facing inconveniences outside the school premises. In case the petitioner is faced with inconveniences which is blown out of proportion, petitioner would inform the same to the police authorities who would take steps in accordance with law.”

3. It is submitted on behalf of the learned advocate for the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner is a teacher in a school. She is being harassed by the school authorities in several ways. He lodged complaints with regard to the actions of such authorities but the police did not take any steps and act on the complaint so lodged by the writ petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that the writ petitioner is in the habit of picking up disputes with the school authorities. She is very much reluctant to the work environment of the school. She does not pay any heed to the decisions taken by the school administration for proper running of the school. Learned advocate for the private respondent also submits that the writ petitioner was issued with a show cause notice for her misdeeds in the school. The writ petitioner answered to the show cause in pursuance of such notice with no reasons at all. Learned advocate for the private respondent submits that the writ petitioner has developed a habit of picking up disputes with the school administration and has been threatening to take up the matter to the police authorities taking advantage of her being a lady.

5. We have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considered the materials placed before us as also took into account the impugned order where the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that there were differences between the school administration and the writ petitioner. It has been alleged, on behalf of the private respondent that the writ petitioner is a habitual late comer to school. She does not pay any heed to the requests and directions issued by the school administration. In spite of that, by the impugned order, the learned Single Judge granted liberty to the writ petitioner to the effect that in case the writ petitioner faced with inconvenience which is blown out of proportion, the writ petitioner will inform the same to the police authority who would take steps in accordance with law.

6. The writ petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs :-

“a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding respondent authorities more, particularly the Respondent No. 8 to immediately submit report in respect to the two G.D.E being No. 359 dated 12.12.2021 and No. 760 dated 23.09.2022 lodged by your petitioner and to take emergent steps for restoration of rights, position and honour of the petitioner which have been illegally scrubbed off by the accused persons;

b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding respondent authorities, more particularly the Respondent No.6, to depute some officers having the same rank of the Officer-in-Charge and Sub-Divisional Police Officer other than the Officer-in-Charge and Sub-

Divisional Police Officer in the presen