Bombay High Court
WALMIKI SAMAJ SEVA MANDAL MANWAT THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT AJIT JAYNARAYAN WALMIKI AND ANOTEHRversusTHE MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THR ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that disputed facts and the availability of arbitration preclude its jurisdiction.
Summary
The petitioners, Walmiki Samaj Seva Mandal, challenged an order dated 02-06-2026 that cancelled their agreement with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and directed them to surrender possession of washrooms to the Divisional Controller. The High Court examined the petition and noted that similar issues had arisen in Writ Petition No.1951 of 2026 at the Kolhapur Circuit Bench, where the court held that disputed questions of fact preclude writ jurisdiction and that the contract provides for arbitration. The present case also involved disputed facts and prior show‑cause notices, leading the court to decline to entertain the writ petition. The judges disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy, such as filing a suit or arbitration, within a week. The respondents were directed that possession would not be taken for a week pending the petitioners' action.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition when the matter involves disputed questions of fact.
- Whether the existence of an arbitration clause in the contract bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- disputed facts
- arbitration clause
- contract enforcement
- possession
- administrative order
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:39361
(1) 14wp10900.26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
14 WRIT PETITION NO. 10900 OF 2026
Walmiki Samaj Seva Mandal Manwat, Tq. Manwat, Dist. Parbhani
through its President Ajit Jaynarayan Walmiki and another
….Petitioners
VERSUS
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation And Others
…..Respondents
Mr.Yogesh V. Jaybhaye, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. S. R. Wakale, 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 Petitioners have challenged
impugned order dated 02-06-2026 thereby cancelling the
agreement entered into with the petitioners and directing the
petitioners to hand over the possession of the washrooms to
Divisional Controller.
3. We have heard learned Advocate for the petitioners 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
1 of 3
(2) 14wp10900.26
in Writ Petition No.1951 of 2026 at Kolhapur Circuit Bench.
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 Petitioners
and the said order records the repeated complaints were received
against the petitioners and the petitioners were 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
2 of 3
(3) 14wp10900.26
petitioners to avail appropriate remedy.
7. Learned Advocate for the petitioners states that the
petitioners 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/14wp10900.26
3 of 3
Checking your session…