M/S A H WHEELER AND COMPANY LTD THR ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORYversusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:39567-DB
                                             1                             32.CA.3719.26.odt

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO.233 OF 2026
                                             WITH
                              CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3719 OF 2026
                                        IN WP/233/2026

                    M/S A. H. WHEELER AND COMPANY LTD THROUGH ITS
                  AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. MANDEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
                                             VERSUS
                   UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                                ...
                          Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Alok M. Sharma
                  Advocate for respondent No.1 : Mr. Akshay Dhananjay Kulkarni
                                                ...
                                   CORAM        : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                                    ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.


                                   DATE           : 29.08.2026

             PER COURT:

             1.     By this petition, the petitioner has put forth following prayers :


                        “B) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
                   mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ to quash and
                   set aside the letter dt. 22.2.2024 and 20.12.2024 bearing No.
                   N/C.79/Catg./MPS/NED/2024 issued by the Sr.D.C.M (C)
                   Comml. Branch, Nanded Division, South Central Railway.

                       C) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the
                   Respondent No. 2 to grant further extension of 277 days for
                   the MPS at the Jalna Railway Station, Dist. Jalna.”

             2.     While issuing notice on 08.01.2026, this Court directed to

             maintain status quo at Jalna Railway Station in respect of

             Multipurpose Stall of the petitioner.
                                   2                                 32.CA.3719.26.odt

3.    The present civil application is preferred by the respondent -

railways seeking vacating and or modification of the status quo order

by raising various grounds, including that the writ petition involves

contractual dispute. In terms of Clause 19.1 of the agreement entered

into between the petitioner and the respondent – Railways, a remedy

of arbitration for dispute resolution is provided. By relying on the

decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) and

Others Vs. Puna Hinda and others ; (2021) 10 SCC 690 and Municipal

Committee Katra and Others Vs. Ashwani Kumar and others; AIR 2024

SC 2855, learned advocate for the railways submits that the petition is

not maintainable.

4.    Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned

advocate for the respondents and after going through the petition, the

reply and the citations relied upon, we are of the considered view that

the present petition pertains to contractual dispute and several

disputed questions of facts are involved. The Hon’ble Apex Court in

para 69 of Union of India Vs. Puna Hinda (supra) has observed as

follows :

     “69.   The position thus summarised in the aforesaid principles has to be
     understood in the context of discussion that preceded which we have
     pointed out above. As per this, no doubt, there is no absolute bar to the
     maintainability of the writ petition even in contractual matters or where
     there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised.
     At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain
     circumstances, it can refuse to exercise. It also follows that under the
     following circumstances, “normally”, the Court would not exercise such a
                                      3                                   32.CA.3719.26.odt

      discretion:

             69.1. The Court may not examine the issue unless the action has
             some public law character attached to it.

             69.2. Whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is
             provided in the contract, the High Court would refuse to exercise
             its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegate the
             party to the said mode of settlement, particularly when settlement
             of disputes is to be resorted to through the means of arbitration.

             69.3. If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are
             of complex nature and require oral evidence for their
             determination.

             69.4. Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual
             obligations are normally not to be entertained except in
             exceptional circumstances.”

5.        In the light of the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court,

the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent - railways

to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 31.12.2025, on its

own merits, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt

of copy of this order. Till the decision is taken, no adverse action be

taken against the petitioner.

6.        Pending civil application stands disposed of.




(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)                            (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)




habeeb/