Bombay High Court

MEHTER SAMAJ BAHUUDDESHIYA SEVABHAVI SANSTHA JINTUR THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT AND ANOTHERversusTHE MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court held that because the dispute involves questions of fact, the writ jurisdiction is unavailable and the petition must be dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, a charitable society, challenged three orders dated 1 May, 27 May and 2 June 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 noted a similar matter (Writ Petition No.1951 of 2026, Kolhapur Circuit Bench) where it held that the presence of disputed questions of fact barred the exercise of writ jurisdiction and that the aggrieved party should pursue suit or arbitration. In the present case, the court found that the orders were issued after show‑cause notices and repeated complaints, and that factual disputes remained. Consequently, the court declined to entertain the writ petition, disposing of it while allowing the petitioners to seek appropriate remedial proceedings. The petitioners were directed to approach the suitable forum within a week of receiving the order.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a contract and order of possession when disputed questions of fact exist.
Whether the petitioners have an alternative remedy of suit or arbitration under the contract.

Subjects

writ jurisdiction
disputed facts
contract cancellation
possession
arbitration
public transport corporation

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39360-DB
                                                (1)                       14wp5958.26




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               14 WRIT PETITION NO. 5958 OF 2026
                 Mehter Samaj Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha Jintur Through Its
                                    President 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.           By this petition, the Petitioners have challenged

                impugned orders dated 01-05-2026,      27-05-2026     &   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.

                2.           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

                in Writ Petition No.1951 of 2026 at Kolhapur Circuit Bench.

                                                                                 1 of 3
                                 (2)                       14wp5958.26




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 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 records 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 petition also we are not inclined to entertain

the petition. We, therefore, dispose of the petition with liberty to the

petitioners to avail appropriate remedy.


                                                                   2 of 3
                                     (3)                       14wp5958.26




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 Petition stands disposed of.




[ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ]                    [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]



VishalK/14wp5958.26




                                                                         3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…