Sangita Chakraborty And ANR. v. The State Of West Bengal And ORS.

4.

4.

(D/L) (D/L) 15.06.2026 CT. NO. 05 (ARPAN-A.R.CT.) In The High Court at Calcutta CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. 16705 OF 2025 SMT. SANGITA CHAKRABORTY AND ANOTHER VS.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS ...............

Ms. Sangita Chakraborty (In Person) ... Petitioner No.1 Mr. Suryaneel Das, AGP Ms. Anita Kundu, Adv.

Ms. Sumita Sarkar, Adv.

...for the State Mr. Subit Majumdar, Adv.

...for the UOI Ms. Amee Rana, Adv. (Via VC) Mr. Chetan Kabra, Adv.

Mr. Kishesh Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Tanvi Raina, Adv.

...for the Respondent No.12 Mr. Arindam Das, Adv.

Ms. Rumeli Sarkar, Adv.

...for the Respondent No.13 Mr. S.T. Mina, Adv.

Mr. Pratick Sardar, Adv.

...for the Respondent No.15 1.

Matter is taken up for consideration in presence of the petitioner no.1, who appears in-person.

2.

Ms. Amee Rana, learned advocate representing the respondent no.12 appears on virtual mode and submits in reference to the statements made in paragraph 6 of this writ petition that Facebook account of the petitioner no.1 is revived. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent no.12 that grievance of the petitioners in view of revival of Facebook account, is redressed. 3.

Learned advocate representing the private respondents has questioned locus standi of petitioner no.2, since previously two writ petitions being WPA 12207 of 2025 and WPA 13669 of 2025 were preferred by the petitioner no.2 on the self-same cause of action and both the writ petitions were dismissed.

[2] 4.

Having considered the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties, Court finds that though this writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of petitioner no.2 in view of dismissal of previous two writ petitions as aforesaid, present writ petition is maintainable at the instance of petitioner no.1.

5.

However, due to revival of Facebook account of petitioner no.1, it appears that substantial grievance of the petitioner no.1 is redressed.

6.

During course of hearing, it is submitted by the petitioner no.1 that she is being threatened.

7.

Concerned police authorities are directed to take steps which would prevent the petitioner no.1 from being threatened and to maintain peace and tranquility at the locale.

8.

Writ petition stands disposed of.

9.

Since no affidavit is called for, allegations contained in this writ petition are not deemed to have been admitted.

10. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)