1 105-wp 7048.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 7048 OF 2026 ( UMESH VITTHALRAO GIRME VS THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COOPERATION, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. AND ORS. ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or the directions, Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Petitioner-in-person. Mr. K.N.Shukul, DSGI a/b Mr.Chirag D. Batra, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Mr.S.M.Ukey, AGP for respondent/State. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 01, 2026 1) Heard petitioner-in-person. 2) Though the office has stated in its report that the party-in-person could not demonstrate the maintainability of the writ petition and that he has no command over the English language, we have heard the party-in-person at length in order to ensure complete justice. 3) The prayer clauses which are in Marathi are reproduced below :- ^^v½ vtZnkjkph rdzkj eatqj dj.;kr ;koh- c½ xSjvtZnkj dzekad 1 rs 5 ;kauh vtZnkjkl nks”kiq.kZ lsok fnY;kus vtZnkjkl ‘kkjhjhd] ekulhd o vkFkhZd «kkl o rlsp ,Dlfi;jUl dzsMhV dkslZ e/;s uko Vkd.;kps vf/kdkj ulrkauk vtZnkjkps uko Vkdqu R;kr lqV QkbZy fygqu tks dzsMhV dkslZ [kjkc dsyk R;keqGs vtZnkjkph cWadsr o lektkr th ir xsyh R;keqGs KOLHE 2026:BHC-NAG:13126-DB 2 105-wp 7048.2026.odt xSjvtZnkj dzekad 5 fnysY;k nks”kiq.kZ lsosckcr ;krhy xSjvtZnkj dzekad 1 rs 4 ;kauh R;kaP;koj dks.krhgh dk;Zokgh u dsY;keqGs ;krhy xSjvtZnkj dzekad 1 rs 5 ;kaP;koj ;ksX; rh dk;Zokgh dj.;kr ;koh o vtZnkjkps ts uqdlku >kys vkgs R;kckcr ofjr xSjvtZnkj dzekad 1 rs 5 ;kauh la;qDri.ks vtZnkjkl uqdlku HkjikbZ ns.;kr ;koh rlsp xSjvtZnkj dzekad 5 ;kauh ts dsysys d`R; vkgs R;kyk xSjvtZnkj dzekad 1 rs 4 ;kauh vtZnkjkps izdj.k fudkyh dk<.;k ,soth xSjvtZnkj dzekad 5 ;kauk lgdk;Z dsY;keqGs vtZnkjkph udk’kk] ,u-,-vkWMZj o iariz/kku vkokl ;kstus varxZr :i;s 2]50]000@& ps vkfe”k nk[koqu th Qlo.kqd >kyh vkgs R;k Qlo.kqdh ckcr ;ksX; rks vkns’k ikjhr dj.;kr ;kok- d½ lnj rdzkj vtkZpk [kpZ :i;s 50]000@& xSjvtZnkj dzekad 1 rs 5 ;kauh vtZnkjkl ns.;kckcr vkns’k ikfjr djkok-** 4) In short, it is the case of the petitioner that he was mentally harassed and defamed in society, for which he claims compensation. He further submits that, in fact, the respondents have played fraud and, therefore, are liable for appropriate action. 5) We have gone through the pleadings made in the petition. At the outset, we would like to state that the petition involves several disputed and complicated questions of fact. We are not saying that such disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction; however, the fact remains that where disputed questions of fact are required to be appreciated on the basis of various documents, the interpretation of which is also required, the remedy under writ jurisdiction would not be available. 6) It is further necessary to mention here that, for establishing the alleged fraud, the party-in-person has the KOLHE 3 105-wp 7048.2026.odt remedy of taking recourse to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, as the case may be. The jurisdictional Magistrate would have jurisdiction to consider the matter when appropriate allegations are brought before him by way of a complaint. Thus, evidence would be required to be led in order to establish the alleged fraud. 7) So far as the argument advanced by the party-in- person that the Multi-State Society/Bank has caused injustice to him is concerned, suffice it to say that the Multi-State Society/Bank cannot be considered to be “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 8) We thus permit the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the competent Court of law and to file a criminal complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate, if he so desires. 9) Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. ( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. ) ( ANIL S. KILOR, J. ) KOLHE Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 05/10/2026 17:07:05