Bombay High Court

JANSEVA SAMITHI, BARSHI THR. SECRETARY AMARENDRA SINGHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. MINISTRY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND ORS.

Disposal: Disposed off as Withdrawn
Bench: RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable because the dispute involves factual questions and the contract provides for arbitration, which is the appropriate remedy.

Summary

The Janseva Samiti filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash a notice dated 20/04/2026 that cancelled its agreements dated 01/09/2001 and 15/06/2001 to operate public toilets at Mangalwedha and Kurdawadi bus stands, and to compel the State to continue those contracts until 2031. The State of Maharashtra and the Divisional Controller of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation contended that the matter involved disputed questions of fact and that the contract itself provided for arbitration, making a suit or arbitration the appropriate remedy. The Court observed that where factual disputes exist and an alternative statutory remedy is available, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not appropriate. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the petition, disposing of it without reaching the merits of the contract cancellation. The decision expressly left all substantive contentions open for determination in any subsequent suit or arbitration.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when the dispute involves factual issues and an alternative remedy such as arbitration is available.
Whether the cancellation of the contract for operating public toilets can be challenged directly through a writ of certiorari.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 226

Subjects

writ jurisdiction
Article 226
arbitration clause
contract cancellation
public toilet services
alternative remedy
factual dispute

Judgment

                                                                                   16-WP-2141-2026 (C).docx


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                             CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                              WRIT PETITION NO. 2141 OF 2026

                      Janseva Samiti, Barshi,                                   … Petitioner
                      Thr. Its Secretary Amarendra Singh
                                          Versus
                      The State of Maharashtra And Ors.                         … Respondents


                                                  ——————
                      Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye (through V.C.) a/w Mr. Shantanu Gurav, for the
                      Petitioner.

                      Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, A.G.P, for Respondent No.1 – State.

                      Mr. Dhananjay Dnyaneshwar Rananaware, for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
                                                  ——————

                                                    Coram :    RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.

                                                    Date   :   1st June 2026.
                                                               [ VACATION COURT ]

                      PER COURT :

                      1.        Heard Mr. Aradhye, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.

                      Rananaware, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr.

                      Rayrikar, learned AGP for respondent No.1-State.

                      2.        By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
TALLE
SHUBHAM
ASHOKRAO              of India, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:-
Digitally signed by
TALLE SHUBHAM
ASHOKRAO
Date: 2026.06.01
17:36:18 +0530




                      Shubham                              1 of 3
                                                          16-WP-2141-2026 (C).docx


            “(b) That by appropriate Writ, Order as well as directions of

            this Hon'ble Court, the impugned Notice/ order dated

            20/04/2026 issued / passed by the Respondent No.3, the

            Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport

            corporation thereby abruptly cancelling the Agreement dated

            01/09/2001 and 15/06/2001 for operating / running Public

            toilet/ urinal at Mangalwedha and Kurdawadi bus Stand be

            quashed and set aside;



            (c)That by appropriate orders as well as directions of this

            Hon'ble Court, the Respondents be ordered and directed to

            continue the contract/ agreement dated 01/09/2001 and

            15/06/2001, with the Petitioner to run/operate public toilet/

            urinal at Mangalwedha and Kurdawadi Bus Stand as per the

            existing terms of the Agreement i.e. till 28/09/2031 and

            31/12/2031 respectively;



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.




Shubham                              2 of 3
                                                         16-WP-2141-2026 (C).docx


4.        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.        Accordingly, the Writ Petition for the above reasons cannot be

entertained and the same is disposed of.

6.         It is clarified that this Court has not considered the merits of the

matter and all contentions on merits are expressly kept open



                                        [ RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J. ]




Shubham                             3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…