Bombay High Court
MEHTER BHANGI SAMAJ DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION THR ITS PRESIDENT SHAIKH G S SHAFEEversusTHE MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THR ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court held that because disputed questions of fact exist, the writ petition cannot be entertained and is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Mehter Bhangi Samaj Development Foundation, challenged an undated order that cancelled its agreement with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and directed it to hand over possession of washrooms to the Divisional Controller. The High Court noted that similar issues had arisen in a related writ petition (Writ Petition No.1951 of 2026) where the court held that disputed questions of fact precluded writ jurisdiction and that the contract provided for arbitration. In the present case, the court found that the impugned order was 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 such as a suit or arbitration. The petition was therefore disposed of, with liberty to approach the appropriate forum within a week.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition when disputed questions of fact are involved.
- Whether the petitioner has a remedy of suit or arbitration under the contract.
- Whether the order cancelling the agreement and directing possession can be challenged via writ jurisdiction.
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- disputed facts
- arbitration clause
- possession
- contract cancellation
- high court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:39362
(1) 14wp10899.26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
14 WRIT PETITION NO. 10899 OF 2026
Mehter Bhangi Samaj Development Foundation Through its President
Shaikh Gaus Shaikh Shafee
….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 undated
impugned order 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) 14wp10899.26
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) 14wp10899.26
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/14wp10899.26
3 of 3
Checking your session…