-- 1 -- WP 3719.2025 (J).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3719 OF 2025 Mehtar Samaj Magasvarigya Sarvangin Vikas Sanstha, Through its President Shri. Ravi Ramuji Kalose @ Pawar, Aged About 54 years, Occ : Service, R/o Bhangipura Prabhag No.2, At Post Digras, Taluka Digras, District Yavatmal – 445203. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Central Office, Maharashtra Transport Building, Dr.Anandrao Nair Marg, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 2. The General Manager (Construction), Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Central Office, Maharashtra Transport Building, Dr.Anandrao Nair Marg, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 .. Respondents 3. The Divisional Controller, Akola Division, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Divisional Office, Mangrulpir Road, Post Gandhinagar, Akola – 444004 4. The Depot Manager Karanja, Karanja Bus Stand, Shivaji Nagar, Karanja – 444105, District Washim 5. The Depot Manager Washim Bus Stand, Civil Line, Washim - 444505 PAGE 1 OF 8 2026:BHC-NAG:12134-DB -- 2 -- WP 3719.2025 (J).doc --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. D. S. Kanwale, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A. S. Mehadia, Advocate for respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 09, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (1) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. (2) The challenge raised in this petition is to the order dated 01/07/2025 passed by the Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), Akola, by which the agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondents was cancelled w.e.f. 10/07/2025 on the ground that the cleaning work of the public toilets was unsatisfactory and further the petitioner did not file any reply to the show-cause notice. (3) In aforesaid background, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a Society, as well as a Trust which was registered in the year 1991 with the Charity Commissioner Office. The petitioner was given a contract of cleaning the public toilets PAGE 2 OF 8 -- 3 -- WP 3719.2025 (J).doc in the premises of bus stand situated at Akola and Nagpur Division. As far as the present case is concerned, the same is with regard to the bus stand at Karanja and Washim. According to the petitioner, the contract was on the basis of “pay and use” of the toilets for 15 years, subject to renewals after reviving the quality of service rendered by the petitioner. The contract was into existence till 14/03/2017 and thereafter was renewed for a further period of 15 years. (4) It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3 issued show-cause notice dated 09/06/2025 calling upon the petitioner to explain, within seven days, as to why the contract concerning the public toilets at Karanja and Washim should not be cancelled on the ground that the directions given to the petitioner from time to time by the respondent/MSRTC were not followed and that newspaper reports had been published highlighting the inconvenience faced by the commuters. According to the petitioner though it is mentioned in the show-cause notice that the fine of Rs.2000/- was imposed, but not paid, the fine was deposited on 26/06/2025. The petitioner then contended that on 01/07/2025, the contract allotted to the petitioner came to be cancelled on the ground that the services rendered by the petitioner were not satisfactory and the show-cause notice was also not replied within seven days. It was also stated that the clause in the agreement empowers the respondent/MSRTC to PAGE 3 OF 8 -- 4 -- WP 3719.2025 (J).doc cancel the agreement. By way of the order impugned dated 01/07/2025, the contract was cancelled w.e.f. 10/07/2025 and petitioner was called upon to handover the possession of the public toilets to the respondent/MSRTC. (5) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, earlier petitioner-Society approached this Court by preferring Writ Petition No.3584/2025 in which, the challenge was made to the show-cause notice and on 10/07/2025, this Court had disposed off the petition by making it clear that, in case if the petitioner demands the documents based on which the show cause notice is issued, we expect of the respondent to make available the same. He then submitted reply dated 25/06/2025 on 03/07/2025 to the respondents, but no action was taken. According to him, the clause in the agreement provides that before terminating the contract, one month notice would be given. The counsel for petitioner also argued that the action taken was contrary to the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not heard in the matter. (6) The respondents have appeared and filed their submission dated 04/09/2025, in which they specifically contended that since the petition involves several disputed questions of facts, it may not be entertained. The respondents contended that by several letters, PAGE 4 OF 8 -- 5 -- WP 3719.2025 (J).doc the petitioner was informed about the deficiencies on its part, however, the petitioner did not improve its service and consequently, the show- cause notice dated 09/06/2025 was issued. (7) According to the respondents, the petitioner did not file any reply to the show-cause notice and after passing of order dated 01/07/2025, submitted its reply dated 25/06/2025 on 03/07/2025. According to them after the submission of reply on 03/07/2025 though the reply is dated 25/06/2025, cannot be a ground to challenge the order which was already passed. As regards the contention that before terminating the contract, one month notice is required to be issued, learned counsel for the respondent/MSRTC submitted that on 09/06/2025, the show-cause notice was issued and the contract was terminated w.e.f. 10/07/2025 which satisfies the requirement mentioned in the agreement. The respondents then further contended that the order terminating the contract on 01/07/2025 was duly served upon the petitioner on 02/07/2025, which fact was suppressed by the petitioner and order dated 10/07/2025 in Writ Petition No.3584/2025 was obtained. (8) Finally, the respondents contended that on 10/07/2025 itself the possession of public toilets at both the places i.e. at Karanja and Washim handed over to the respondents by the petitioner and now PAGE 5 OF 8 -- 6 -- WP 3719.2025 (J).doc the work is given to new agency. Learned counsel then argued that the petitioner always raise its grievance before the Civil Court as several disputed questions on facts are involved. (9) In the aforesaid background, we heard respective counsels and given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced. (10) It is not disputed that the parties are governed by the agreement, and the terms and conditions thereof govern the rights and liabilities of the parties. It is also not disputed that two show-cause notice dated 09/06/2025 were served upon the petitioner, which were never replied by the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has deposited fine of Rs.2000/-. As regards the order passed by this Court in earlier Writ Petition No.3584/2025 is concerned, same was passed on 10/07/2025, whereas the impugned order was passed on 01/07/2025 itself. The petitioner has not filed any counter-affidavit denying the submission made by the respondents that the order dated 01/07/2025 was served upon the petitioner on 02/07/2025. The petitioner has given absolutely no explanation as to why the impugned order dated 01/07/2025 was not produced for the perusal of the Court when the order dated 10/07/2025 was passed in Writ Petition No.3584/2025, which would have certainly had affected the decision PAGE 6 OF 8 -- 7 -- WP 3719.2025 (J).doc making process of the Court. There is also no counter to the submission that after cancellation of the contract, the petitioner has voluntarily handed over possession of public toilets on 10/07/2025 to the respondent/MSRTC and another agency for the purpose of maintaining and cleaning is already appointed. (11) As regards the contention of the petitioner that one month notice was not given, it can be said that in view of issuance of show-cause notice on 09/06/2025 and termination of contract w.e.f. 10/07/2025, would reveal that prima facie the terms of agreement were complied with. (12) At this stage, we would like to state that examining whether the work rendered by the petitioner was satisfactory and whether the earlier petitioners were also called upon to perform satisfactorily would require us to enter into an arena of factual inquiry, which would not be permissible while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are not saying that the disputed questions of facts cannot be examined while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, where adjudication of dispute requires determination of complicated and seriously disputed questions of facts on the basis of competing factual assertions, the High Court may decline to exercise its writ jurisdiction. PAGE 7 OF 8 -- 8 -- WP 3719.2025 (J).doc (13) Since the petitioner has not replied the show-cause notice and the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the contract, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. [ RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. ] [ ANIL S. KILOR J.] KOLHE PAGE 8 OF 8 Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 15/09/2026 10:11:30