Bombay High Court

SANKALP FOUNDATION PURNAversusTHE MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is dismissed as it involves disputed questions of fact, and the court cannot entertain the writ.

Summary

The petitioner, Sankalpa Foundation, challenged a June 13, 2026 order that cancelled its agreement with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and directed it to surrender possession of washrooms to the Divisional Controller. The High Court noted that similar issues had arisen in Writ Petition No. 1951 of 2026 before the Kolhapur Circuit Bench, where the court held that disputed questions of fact preclude the exercise of writ jurisdiction and that the contract provides for arbitration. In the present case, the court found that the impugned orders were issued after a show‑cause notice and repeated complaints against the petitioner, indicating factual disputes. Consequently, the court declined to entertain the writ petition, directing the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy through suit or arbitration, and disposed of the petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum within a week. The petition was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition when the matter involves disputed questions of fact.
Whether the order cancelling the contract and directing possession of washrooms is amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Subjects

writ petition
disputed facts
arbitration clause
contract cancellation
possession
high court jurisdiction

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39363-DB
                                                (1)                      14wp10892.26




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               14 WRIT PETITION NO. 10892 OF 2026
                     Sankalpa Foundation Purna through its President Sumit Nandlal
                                               Chavre
                                                                          ….Petitioner
                                              VERSUS

                     The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation And Others
                                                                     …..Respondents


                Mr.Yogesh V. Jaybhaye, Advocate for the Petitioners
                Mr. M. K. Goyanka, AGP for the respondents/State
                Mr. A. B. Dhongade, Advocate for the Respondents

                                      CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI &
                                              ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.
                                         DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2026


                PER COURT :

                1.           Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board.

                2.           By this petition, the Petitioner has challenged impugned

                order dated 13-06-2026 thereby cancelling the agreement entered

                into with the petitioner and directing the petitioner to hand over the

                possession of the washrooms to Divisional Controller.

                3.           We have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and

                learned Advocate for the Respondents. We have perused the grounds

                raised in the Writ Petition, annexures thereto and the order relied

                upon by the learned Advocate for the Respondents dated 07.05.2026

                in Writ Petition No.1951 of 2026 at Kolhapur Circuit Bench.

                                                                                 1 of 3
                                (2)                       14wp10892.26




4.          In the said order, similar challenge was raised and this

Court in paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5 observed thus :

            “3. Mr. Rananaware, learned counsel appearing for
            Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 states that there are disputed
            questions of fact involved in the petition and, therefore,
            this Court should refrain from exercising the writ
            jurisdiction.
            4. Perusal of letters dated 7th March 2026 (Exh.C, Page
            No.35), dated 2nd April 2026 (Exh.E, Page 42), dated
            13th April 2026 (Exh.F Page No.43) and dated 20th
            April 2026 (Exh.H, Page No.45) show that there is
            substance in the contention raised by learned counsel
            appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that entertaining
            the writ petition would entail examining disputed
            question of fact.
            5. In any case, the petitioner has remedy of filing suit
            and / or filing arbitration proceedings, as it is a
            submission of Mr. Aradhye, learned counsel appearing
            for the petitioner that so far as the contract is concerned,
            the contract provides for arbitration proceedings.”

5.          In the present case also it appears that the impugned

orders are passed after giving show cause notice to the Petitioner and

the said order records the repeated complaints were received against

the petitioners and the petitioner was from time to time instructed to

mend its ways.

6.          Be that as it may, since, disputed questions of fact are

involved in the present petition also we are not inclined to entertain

the petition. We, therefore, dispose of the petition with liberty to the

petitioner to avail appropriate remedy.


                                                                   2 of 3
                                    (3)                       14wp10892.26




7.               Learned Advocate for the petitioner states that the

petitioner will approach the appropriate forum within a period of one

(1) week from date of receipt of copy of this order.

8.               Learned    Advocate      Mr.   Dhongade,   appearing      for

Respondents submits that the possession will not be taken from the

petitioners for a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of

copy of this order.

9.               In view of above, the writ Petition stands disposed of.




[ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ]                   [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]



VishalK/14wp10892.26




                                                                        3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…