(1) 14wp10900.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 14 WRIT PETITION NO. 10900 OF 2026 Walmiki Samaj Seva Mandal Manwat, Tq. Manwat, Dist. Parbhani through its President Ajit Jaynarayan Walmiki 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. Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board. 2. By this petition, the Petitioners have challenged impugned order dated 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. 3. 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 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AUG:39361 (2) 14wp10900.26 in Writ Petition No.1951 of 2026 at Kolhapur Circuit Bench. 4. 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.” 5. In the present case also it appears that the impugned orders are passed after giving show cause notice to the Petitioners and the said order records the repeated complaints were received against the petitioners and the petitioners were from time to time instructed to mend its ways. 6. 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 2 of 3 (3) 14wp10900.26 petitioners to avail appropriate remedy. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. In view of above, the writ Petition stands disposed of. [ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ] [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] VishalK/14wp10900.26 3 of 3