1 32.CA.3719.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.233 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3719 OF 2026 IN WP/233/2026 M/S A. H. WHEELER AND COMPANY LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. MANDEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Alok M. Sharma Advocate for respondent No.1 : Mr. Akshay Dhananjay Kulkarni ... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 29.08.2026 PER COURT: 1. By this petition, the petitioner has put forth following prayers : “B) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the letter dt. 22.2.2024 and 20.12.2024 bearing No. N/C.79/Catg./MPS/NED/2024 issued by the Sr.D.C.M (C) Comml. Branch, Nanded Division, South Central Railway. C) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to grant further extension of 277 days for the MPS at the Jalna Railway Station, Dist. Jalna.” 2. While issuing notice on 08.01.2026, this Court directed to maintain status quo at Jalna Railway Station in respect of Multipurpose Stall of the petitioner. 2026:BHC-AUG:39567-DB 2 32.CA.3719.26.odt 3. The present civil application is preferred by the respondent - railways seeking vacating and or modification of the status quo order by raising various grounds, including that the writ petition involves contractual dispute. In terms of Clause 19.1 of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent – Railways, a remedy of arbitration for dispute resolution is provided. By relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Puna Hinda and others ; (2021) 10 SCC 690 and Municipal Committee Katra and Others Vs. Ashwani Kumar and others; AIR 2024 SC 2855, learned advocate for the railways submits that the petition is not maintainable. 4. Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate for the respondents and after going through the petition, the reply and the citations relied upon, we are of the considered view that the present petition pertains to contractual dispute and several disputed questions of facts are involved. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para 69 of Union of India Vs. Puna Hinda (supra) has observed as follows : “69. The position thus summarised in the aforesaid principles has to be understood in the context of discussion that preceded which we have pointed out above. As per this, no doubt, there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition even in contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised. At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain circumstances, it can refuse to exercise. It also follows that under the following circumstances, “normally”, the Court would not exercise such a 3 32.CA.3719.26.odt discretion: 69.1. The Court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law character attached to it. 69.2. Whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is provided in the contract, the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegate the party to the said mode of settlement, particularly when settlement of disputes is to be resorted to through the means of arbitration. 69.3. If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination. 69.4. Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances.” 5. In the light of the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent - railways to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 31.12.2025, on its own merits, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till the decision is taken, no adverse action be taken against the petitioner. 6. Pending civil application stands disposed of. (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) habeeb/