Bombay High Court
JANJHIT SEVA SANSTHA KOPARGAON THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT SHAMBHU M PATHAKversusTHE MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that because disputed questions of fact exist, the writ jurisdiction is not appropriate and the petitions are dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, Janjhit Seva Sanstha and Mehter Bhangi Samaj Development Foundation, challenged orders by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation that cancelled their agreements and directed them to surrender possession of washrooms to the Divisional Controller. The High Court examined the pleadings and noted that the orders were issued after show‑cause notices and repeated complaints against the petitioners. The Court observed that the matters raised involve disputed questions of fact, which are unsuitable for writ jurisdiction, and that the contract itself provides for arbitration. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the writ petitions, directing the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies such as a suit or arbitration. The petitions were disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum within a week of the order.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition challenging the cancellation of agreements and order of possession when disputed questions of fact are involved.
- Whether the petitioners have an alternative remedy of suit or arbitration under the contract.
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- disputed facts
- arbitration
- contract cancellation
- possession
- Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
- civil procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:44291
{1} 128-wp-5537-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
128 WRIT PETITION NO. 5537 OF 2026
Janjhit Seva Sanstha Kopargaon Through Its President Shambhu M
Pathak through its GPA Holder Alok Shambhu Pathak
VERSUS
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation And Others
...
Mr. Yogesh V. Jaybhaye, Advocate for the Petitioners in all petitions
Mr. A.B. Dhongade, Advocate for Respondents No. 1 to 3 in all petitions
129 WRIT PETITION NO. 5631 OF 2026
Mehter Bhangi Samaj Development Foundation Jintur Through Its
President Shaikh Gaus Shaikh Shafee
VERSUS
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation And Others
130 WRIT PETITION NO. 5632 OF 2026
Mehter Bhangi Samaj Development Foundation Jintur Through Its
President Shaikh Gaus Shaikh Shafee
VERSUS
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation And Others
131 WRIT PETITION NO. 5634 OF 2026
Janjhit Seva Sanstha Kopargaon Through Its President Shambhu M
Pathak through its GPA Holder Alok Shambhu Pathak
VERSUS
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation And Others
.......
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
{2} 128-wp-5537-2026
PER COURT :
1. By these petitions, Petitioners have challenged the orders passed
by Respondent No. 2 thereby cancelling the agreements entered into
with the petitioners and directing petitioners to hand over the
possession of the washrooms to Divisional Controller.
2. 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.
3. 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
{3} 128-wp-5537-2026
of Mr. Aradhye, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that so far as the contract is concerned, the
contract provides for arbitration proceedings.”
4. In the present case also it appears that the impugned orders are
passed after giving show cause notice to the Petitioners and the said
orders record the repeated complaints were received against the
petitioners and the petitioners were from time to time instructed to
mend its ways.
5. Be that as it may, since, disputed questions of fact are involved
in the present petitions also, we are not inclined to entertain the
petitions. We, therefore, dispose of the petitions with liberty to the
petitioners to avail appropriate remedy
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. In view of above, the writ Petitions stand disposed of.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde
Checking your session…