Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 915

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.
Ashima Sanjeev Minocha – Petitioner
Versus
Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited & Anr. – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 3285 of 2026
Decided On : 16-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: I G Joshi
For the Respondent: Mr Keyur Gandhi With Mr Nirav Joshi With Mr Nisarg Desai With Ms Pravalikha Batthini For Gandhi Law Associates

Writ petitions against non-state private entities are generally not maintainable. Furthermore, parties must exhaust efficacious alternative statutory appellate remedies provided under specific legislation before invoking extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, especially when the challenged administrative inquiry process adheres to principles of natural justice and lacks evidence of perversity.

Headnote:(A) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Sections 2(n), 3, 4, 11, 14, 18 - Constitution of India - Article 12, 226, 227 - Writ jurisdiction - Maintainability of petition against private co-operative society - Existence of alternative efficacious remedy - The court held that a co-operative society not satisfying the tests of being an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 is not amenable to writ jurisdiction - Furthermore, where a statutory appeal is provided under Section 18 of the Act, the High Court will not entertain a writ petition unless there is a violation of natural justice or patent illegality. (Paras 11.2, 11.3, 11.5)

(B) Judicial Review - Scope of - Appellate courts should not substitute their views for those of the Internal Complaints Committee unless there is patent unreasonableness, perversity, or mala fides - Adherence to principles of natural justice by the Committee precludes interference - Excessive interference with quasi-judicial inquiry processes may be counterproductive to the statutory framework. (Paras 11.10)

(C) Sexual Harassment - Definition of - Not limited to subjective intent - Includes conduct resulting in hostile or intimidating work environments - However, frivolous or malicious complaints are subject to disciplinary action under Section 14 to prevent misuse of statutory protections. (Paras 11.9, 11.10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an employee of a co-operative society, alleged harassment by senior management. A committee was constituted to inquire into the complaint and a cross-complaint filed by an official. The committee concluded the petitioner's complaint was false and malicious and recommended disciplinary action. The petitioner challenged the inquiry report, alleging institutional bias, procedural flaws, and that the society should be considered an authority under the Constitution, seeking to quash the findings of the committee.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the employer entity does not qualify as 'State' under Article 12 and is not performing a public function amenable to writ jurisdiction. The court observed that an alternative efficacious remedy exists under Section 18 of the relevant Act, which the petitioner failed to exhaust. The inquiry findings were found to be based on an assessment of material, including video evidence, and no procedural infirmity or bias was established.

Issues: Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a co-operative society for challenging an internal inquiry report; whether the court should exercise jurisdiction despite the availability of an appellate remedy; and whether the findings of the inquiry committee were perverse or in violation of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction is restricted by the existence of alternative statutory remedies and is generally inapplicable to private entities unless specific public law elements are involved. Where an inquiry committee follows due process and observes principles of natural justice, its findings on facts and evidence are not subject to judicial reassessment unless clearly arbitrary, perverse, or illegal.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned counsel Mr. Keyur Gandhi, appearing on behalf of Gandhi Law Associates, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondents.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the petition has been taken up for final hearing today.

3. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter be referred to as “the POSH Act”), petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

“A. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the Final Report dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure U) issued by Respondent No. 2 – Internal Complaints Committee; and

B. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 1 to comply with the order dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure V) passed by the State Human Rights Commission and constitute a fresh, neutral, and independent Internal Complaints Committee excluding members subordinate to Respondent No. 2, and direct a de novo inquiry into the Petitioner’s complaint under the supervision of a retired judicial officer or such independent authority as this Hon’ble Court deems fit;

BB. Pending hearing and disposal of the petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to forward the Final Report dated 25.09.2025 to the Superintendent of Police, Anand for inquiring into the observations made at Para 22 of the Final Report by Respondent No. 2, vis a-vis, forcefully taking the phone from Petitioner’s hand and further consider the case of the Petitioner for compensation as deemed appropriate by this Hon’ble Court;

C. For costs; and

D. Such other and further reliefs as may be considered fit and expedient in the facts of the present case be granted.”

4. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the petitioner completed her Bachelor of Commerce in the year 2016 and thereafter obtained a Master of Business Administration in Rural Management from the Institute of Rural Management, Anand in the year 2018. That, upon successfully clearing the recruitment process conducted through her college, the petitioner appeared for and cleared the interview process and was appointed as Senior Executive (Sales) on 18.04.2018 with respondent No. 1 and thereafter, upon successful completion of her probationary period with respondent Society, her services were duly confirmed. That, in recognition of her performance and services, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager (Marketing) on 29.10.2021 and had been discharging her duties as an Assistant Manager with respondent No. 1 since then without any complaints from the management.

4.1 It is the case of the petitioner that, on 28.05.2025, the Petitioner was subjected to physical and verbal assault by one Mr. Jayen Mehta and Ms. Shefali Vijaywargiya at around 07:30 pm. That, both Mr. Mehta and Ms. Vijaywargiya forcibly snatched the petitioner's mobile phone from her hand and confiscated the same and therefore, the petitioner submitted a written complaint addressed to the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, the Chief General Manager and the Head of the Women Grievance Cell of respondent No. 1 on 29.05.2025 at 01:30 am. That, subsequent to filing of the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner's official email account and employee portal user ID were blocked, thereby disabling her access to the same. That, upon experiencing dizziness and an episode of vomiting arising out of the injuries sustained in the aforesaid incident, the petitioner contacted a friend who took her to the hospital for medical examination. That, upon examination, the attending doctor advised

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 915

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADHemant M. Prachchhak, J.Ashima Sanjeev Minocha – PetitionerVersusGujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited & Anr. – RespondentsSpecial Civil Application No. 3285 of 2026Decided On : 16-04-2026

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.
Ashima Sanjeev Minocha – Petitioner
Versus
Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited & Anr. – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 3285 of 2026
Decided On : 16-04-2026