{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 2026:BHC-AUG:44291 {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