1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 617 OF 2010 Nanda P. Shetty ).. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and others ).. Respondents Mr. Mihir Desai a/w Ms. Apporva Kaiwar for the Petitioner. Mr. A.B. Ketkar, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State. Mr. P.K. Rele a/w Mr. Piyush Shah for Respondent No.4. CORAM : J.N. PATEL, ACTING C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 3RD MAY 2010 P.C. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The Petitioner approaches this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to take steps to ensure that the employer comply with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court with regard to cases of sexual harassment at their work places in letter and spirit and thereafter seeking a Writ of Certiorari for setting aside the report dated 28th October 2009 submitted by the Committee constituted by Respondent No.4 and that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 should forthwith constitute an independent Committee to inquire into the complaint of sexual harassment made by the Petitioner and other ancillary reliefs. 2 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner fairly stated under the impression that the Committee is not properly constituted, she did not co-operate with the Inquiry Committee constituted by the Respondent-employer. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has specifically referred to one of the Member of the Committee as being not an expert or a person who is acquainted with the cases of sexual harassment. The learned Counsel submitted that there are no guidelines or parameters by which selection of Members of the Committee can be scrutinized. In our view, the Petitioner is probably harbouring such an impression which is without any justification. 4. On the intervention of this Court, Mr. P.K. Rele, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.4, submitted that in order to give a fair opportunity to the Petitioner, the Respondent No.4 is ready to go ahead with the inquiry by the said Committee from the stage the Petitioner withdrew from the inquiry. 5. We find that it will be in the interest of justice that the inquiry is conducted properly for which co-operation of the Petitioner is required and, therefore, we direct the Respondent No.4 to conduct the inquiry into the complaint made by the Petitioner afresh by the Committee appointed by the Respondents. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, after seeking instructions, assured the Court that the Petitioner would extend all possible co-operation and will not take any unnecessary adjournments in the inquiry. 3 6. We dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to Respondent No.4 to start the inquiry from 10th May 2010 and complete the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks therefrom. 7. Writ Petition disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.