Bombay High Court

MAHALAXMI SAHAKARI DUDH VYAVSAYIK SANSTHA MARYADIT THR. THE REPRESENTATIVEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS

Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as it involves disputed questions of fact and falls within a group of petitions already decided.

Summary

Mahalaxmi Sahakari Dudh Vyavsayik Sanstha Maryadit filed a writ petition challenging actions of the State of Maharashtra and numerous other respondents. The High Court noted that this petition fell within a group of similar petitions that had already been adjudicated in a common judgment dated 03‑09‑2026. The Court observed that the present petition raised disputed questions of fact, which are not suitable for adjudication through a writ remedy. Consequently, the Court adopted the reasoning applied to the other petitions in the group and dismissed the petition. The dismissal was based on the principle that writ courts will not entertain matters that require factual determination beyond the scope of the writ jurisdiction.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition can be entertained when it involves disputed questions of fact

Subjects

writ petition
dismissal
factual dispute
high court
cooperative society
maintainability

Judgment

                                                    501-WP-4411-2026 (C).doc




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4411 OF 2026

Mahalaxmi Sahakari Dudh Vyavsayik
Sanstha Maryadit Thr. The Representative                    ...Petitioner
      Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Secretary And Ors              ...Respondents

                                    …..
Adv. Dhrupad Patil h/f Adv. Rajvardhan S. Chougule, for Petitioner.
Adv. Dilip Bodake, for Respondent Nos.3 and 6.
Mr. Bapusaheb Dahiphale, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Adv. Shriniwas S. Patwardhan a/w Adv. Bhooshan Mandlik, Adv.
Prabodh Patil and Adv. Ajay Raje Nimbalkar, Advocate for the
respondent Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46,
47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69,
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88,
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 109, 110,
111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 125, 127, 128,
129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142,
143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155 and 156.
                                    …..


                                     CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                                     DATE     : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

P.C. :

           Heard.

2.         This Court has already dealt with the petitions classified into

three groups, which were decided by a common judgment and order

passed on 03.09.2026. Similarly circumstanced, Writ Petition No.4343



     ZIP                                                              1 of 2
                                                   501-WP-4411-2026 (C).doc


of 2026 and Writ Petition (ST) No.8163 of 2026 were included in Group

No. III. The petitions comprising the said group were dismissed. I

propose to adopt the same reasons and course. It is reiterated that the

present petition involves disputed questions of fact. The writ petition is

dismissed.

                                            [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]




   ZIP                                                               2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…