PRIYA GUNAJI GAOKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is employed in Bhabha Atomic Research Center (for short "BARC") at Trombay. She used to travel from her place of residence to the place of work in the staff bus made available for her and some other employees by the BARC. According to the petitioner, the other employees of BARC who used to travel by the same staff bus used to harass her in a number of ways. That, some of them used to taunt her and used to make various comments which would cause embarrassment to her. The petitioner, therefore, wrote to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone IV complaining about the alleged incidents, and requesting to register a case against the persons named by her. Pursuant to the communication sent by the petitioner to the Dy. Commissioner of Police Zone IV, inquiries were made. The statement of the petitioner was recorded by an Assistant Inspector of Police attached to Trombay Police Station. In the course of the inquiry, statements of all the persons who were named by the petitioner as the culprits and of some others, came to be recorded. Ultimately, the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-IV passed an order relying upon the statements recorded in the course of the inquiry and the opinions expressed by the Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police of the Trombay Police Station, that the complaint made by the petitioner against the persons named in it was without any substance; and that it had been made by the petitioner mischievously and with the object of harassing the persons mentioned as culprits. However, the petitioner was not informed of this decision taken by the police authorities. Consequently, she was not aware of any such decision. The petitioner sought the relevant information under the provisions of Right to Information Act, and was provided with the relevant information, where after she became aware of the fact that the police authorities had decided not to take any action in the matter.

(2.) The petitioner has now approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a number of reliefs.

(3.) Considering the nature of challenge and the relief sought for; and the fact that an affidavit in reply had already been filed on behalf of the respondent, by consent, it was decided that the petition should be heard finally at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, Rule was issued, was made returnable forthwith by consent, and petition was heard finally by consent.