( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5903 OF 2026 PETITIONER : Mehtar Samaj Magaswargiya Sarvangin Vikas Sanstha, Digras, through its President, Shri Ravi Ramu Kalose, aged about 58 years, R/o Siddhivinayak Nagar, Digras, Tq. Digras, Distt. Yavatmal. -Versus- RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Transport and Ports, MTNL Building, Fountain 2 Building, 5th Floor, M.G.Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. 2. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), through its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Vahtuk Bhavan, 1st Floor, Dr. A.N.Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008. 3. General Manager (Construction), MSRTC, Maharashtra Vahtuk Bhavan, 1st Floor, D.r A.N. Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008. 4. The Divisional Controller, MSRTC Office at Sevagram Road, MIDC, Wardha, Dist. Wardha. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Firdos Mirza, Sr.Adv.a/b Mr.S.M.Khan, Mr.P.S.Thakur, Ms.Ishal D.Thakare, Advs. for the petitioner. Mr.S.M.Ukey, Addl.GP for the respondent-State. Mr.A.S.Mehadia, Adv. for respondent Nos.2 to 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR & RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATE : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2026 2026:BHC-NAG:12191-DB ( 2 ) O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per : Rajnish R. Vyas, J.) Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The petitioner-Society in the present petition, which claims to be a social organization working for the upliftment of the persons belonging to Mehtar Samaj and is a trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, has approached this Court with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 25/07/2026, issued by respondent No.4, i.e. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), Wardha, by which the contract entered into regarding cleaning of the public toilets and urinals situated in the bus stand was cancelled on the ground that the work undertaken/services rendered by the petitioner was unsatisfactory. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mirza, in order to support the case of the petitioner, has advanced the following submission:- (i) decision to cancel the contract was taken with pre-determined view; (ii) show cause notice fails to give the grounds on which the action is proposed to be taken; ( 3 ) (iii) the post decisional hearing is just an empty formality; (iv) reply to the show cause notice was not considered; and (v) action taken is contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement, more particularly Clause -10, which speaks about giving of one month advance notice. 5. Per contra, Mr.Mehadia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4-MSRTC, has argued that the decision taken was on the basis of material available on record and no pre-determined view was taken. According to him, merely because the standing counsel of the MSRTC was directed to file caveat and the agency was intended to be appointed to clean the toilets and urinals, so also doing other works, at the bus stand, the same would not, by itself, established that the decision was pre-determined. 5.1. According to him, the show cause notice refers to various other communications and therefore, it gives a clear picture to the petitioner as to what action is proposed to be taken against it. According to him, there was no question of granting a post decisional hearing as this Court in earlier round of litigation has categorically directed that the petitioner be given appropriate notice and hearing. He submitted that the reply to show cause notice is duly taken into consideration and thereafter the order impugned dated 25/07/2026 came to be passed. He argued that the action taken is in consonance with the terms and conditions of the agreement, ( 4 ) more particularly Clause-10, as the time period prescribed was duly honoured and therefore, interference at the hands of this Court may not be required. 5.2. In addition, the learned counsel for the MSRTC submitted that various show cause notices on earlier occasions were also given to the petitioner-agency pointing out unsatisfactory work carried out, which were forwarded by e-mails. 5.3. He also invited our attention to the judgment delivered by the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur in Writ Petition No.1951 of 2026 (The President, Jijamata Mahila Gram Vikas Mandal v. the State of Maharashtra and others) dated 07/05/2026, in which also similar action was taken against the agency which was awarded the work of cleaning public toilets and urinals and in the said writ petition, it was categorically observed that the petitioner had remedy to file a suit and/or filing arbitration proceedings and accordingly, the petition was disposed of. 5.4. He further contended that as the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of contract, the matter, will have to be tried by the Civil Court, where the stand taken would be appreciated on the basis of evidence produced. To support his contention, he has relied upon the judgment dated 14/07/2026 passed in Writ Petition No.6961 of 2026 (Samadhan Sevabhavi Sanstha v. The State of Maharashtra and others) ( 5 ) delivered by the Aurangabad Bench, where the agreement of similar nature was challenged by the contractor on the ground that termination of the agreement was illegal and the Coordinate Bench refused to deal with the issue, on the ground that petition involved disputed question of facts. 5.5. Mr.Mehadia, learned counsel for the respondent-MSRTC, further contended that so far as the view taken by the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur in Writ Petition No.1951 of 2026 on 07/05/2026 is concerned, the same was challenged by preferring Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19228 of 2026 before the Hon’ble Apex Court by the contractor. The Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal and refused to interfere with the order impugned therein. According to him, vide said order dated 01/06/2026, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the liberty granted by the High Court to the petitioner for approaching the Civil Court as an alternate remedy. 6. In rebuttal, Mr.Mirza, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, has invited our attention to the communication dated 18/07/2019 issued by the General Manager (Construction) of MSRTC and contended that by the said communication, it was stated that the work of cleaning public toilets, their maintenance granted to various societies run by Walmiki and Mehtar Communities on ‘pay and use’ basis can be continued for further period of 15 years, as the Board of Directors have approved the same with ( 6 ) a condition that every year the services rendered and work done be assessed and if found satisfactory, the extension can be granted. It was further directed that after lapse of period and after taking yearly assessment, the agreement of fifteen years be entered into. He then relied upon list of toilet blocks allotted to the petitioner of which there are 28 and according to him, Annexure-E would reveal the expenses incurred by the petitioner-Society on renovation and maintenance of the public toilets. 6.1. According to him, though the contract was in force, on 11/03/2026 the Chief Accounting Officer and Financial Advisor of MSRTC has informed all the Divisional Controllers that in order to allot the work of cleaning toilets at the bus stand so also, in order to provide appropriate amenities/necessary facilities in the rest room for drivers and conductors, the work was to be allotted through outsourcing and the e-tender process was followed. The said communication, according to the petitioner, further shows that after concluding the tender process, two companies, i.e. M/s.Smart Services Pvt. Ltd., Pune and M/s.Crystal Integrated Services Ltd. were allotted the work for different area. 6.2. He, thus, submits that on 11/03/2026 only, the decision was taken to allot the work. Thereafter, on 02/04/2026, the Legal Officer Class- I, General Manager (Construction) was informed that the procedure for appointing the agency to clean public toilets at the bus stand by issuing ( 7 ) tender notice is to be implemented and therefore, the process for cancellation of the agreements/licenses granted is required to be conducted. In communication it was also stated that there is every likelihood that process can be challenged by the concerned society and accordingly, the MSRTC has appointed lawyers at various Courts in order to file the caveat. He, thus, submits that the aforesaid action was striking example of mala fide. 6.3. He then, contended that thereafter the show cause notices dated 15/04/2026 and 17/04/2026 as well the other notices calling explanation for the action to be taken against the petitioner was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.3950 of 2026 (Mehtar Samaj Magaswargiya Sarvangin Vikas Sanstha, Digras v. State of Maharashtra and others) and on 07/05/2026, considering the fact that the petitioner had already filed reply to the show cause notices, respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein were directed to decide the aforesaid show cause notices on their own merits and in accordance with law after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6.4. The petitioner on 19.5.2026 submitted representation with a request to permit it to continue the maintenance work. 6.5. On 22.5.2026, respondent no. 4 issued show cause notice to the petitioner which was received by the petitioner on 27.5.2026. On 30.5.2026, the contract of the petitioner came to be terminated for the ( 8 ) toilet blocks at Arvi, Pulgaon, Karanja and Hinganghat without granting an opportunity of hearing. According to petitioner, he has challenged the termination order dated 30.5.2026 in Writ Petition 4698/2026 before this Court and same came to be disposed of on 12.6.2026 as the learned counsel for respondents made a statement that it would grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and consequently withdraw the impugned order. On 24.6.2026, the petitioner was given notice and was asked to remain present for hearing on 1.7.2026. 6.6. According to petitioner, respondent no. 4 in its show cause notice has relied upon documents dated 30.3.2026, 28.4.2026, 20.5.2026 and 21.5.2026 but after the request made by the petitioner, documents dated 28.4.2026, 20.5.2026 and 21.5.2026 only were supplied. It is the case of the petitioner that again on 9.7.2026, respondents fixed the date of hearing on which date the petitioner also filed its written notes. 6.7. On 25.7.2026, the respondent passed the impugned order and terminated the agreement from 26.7.2026. 6.8. Mr.Mirza, learned Senior Advocate argued that in spite of direction issued by this Court on 07/05/2026 in Writ Petition No.3950 of 2026 and order dated 22.6.2026 in Writ Petition No. 4698/2026 respondent No.6-Divisional Controller, has passed the impugned termination order dated 25.7.2026. He submitted that the order dated ( 9 ) 25/07/2026 though refers to the several communications, only few were supplied to the petitioner and the grounds on which the order was passed, were never part of the show cause notice. He, in order to buttress his contention has relied upon the judgment in the case of ABL International Ltd. and another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553. The gist of which is in para-27 of the judgment, which is reproduced herein below. “27. From the above discussion of ours, the following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition: (a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable. (b) Merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. (c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable.” 6.9. He has also invited our attention to the judgment in the case of H.L.Trehan and others v. Union of India and others, reported in (1989) 1 SCC 764, more particularly, para-12, in order to contend that post decisional hearing would not be a compliance of principles of natural justice, as there is a tendency to uphold the decision taken and representation made may not really yield any fruitful purpose. A reliance is also placed upon the judgment in the case of Gorkha Security Services v. ( 10 ) Government (NCT of Delhi) and others, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105, more particularly, para-21 to contend that the show cause notice must satisfy two requirements, i.e. (i) the material/ground to be stated, which according to the department necessitates an action and (ii) particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. Para-22 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below. “22. The High Court has simply stated that the purpose of show-notice is primarily to enable the noticee to meet the grounds on which action is proposed against him. No doubt, the High Court is justified to this extent. However, it is equally important to mention as to what would be the consequence if the noticee does not satisfactorily meet the grounds on which an action is proposed. To put it otherwise, we are of the opinion that in order to fulfill the requirements of principles of natural justice, a show-cause should meet the following two requirements viz: (i) The material/grounds to be stated which according to the department necessitates an action; (ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. It is this second requirement which the High Court has failed to omit. We may hasten to add that even if it is not specifically mentioned in the show-cause notice but it can clearly and safely be discerned from the reading thereof, that would be sufficient to meet this requirement.” 7. In the aforesaid background, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the respective parties, so also have gone through the record of the case. ( 11 ) 8. The following dates would be relevant for considering the issue involved in the present matter: (i) 27/05/1992 – Work of maintenance of toilets block was given to the petitioner and thereafter was continued. (ii) 18/07/2019 – Respondent No.2 passed resolution and issued a letter extending the contract by period of 15 years. (iii) 22/5/2026 – Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner regarding cancellation of the agreement. (iv) 11/03/2026 – The officer of respondents informed all Divisional Controllers that tender for maintenance and cleanliness of public toilets was issued to two companies. (v) 02/04/2026 – The legal advisor instructed to the General Manager regarding initiation of process of cancellation of agreement as the procedure for appointment of service provider for cleaning bus depot, bus stand is implemented. (vi) 06/04/2026 – Circular issued by the respondents reviving a cleanliness surcharge of Rs.2/- on every passenger ticket. (vii) In Writ Petition 3950/2026, impugned show cause notice issued by the Divisional Controllar. 15/04/2026 and 17/04/2026, 20/04/2026 and 22/04/2026 – show cause notices issued for cancellation of the agreement. (viii) 07/05/2026 – In Writ Petition No.3950 of 2026, this Court directed respondents to grant opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. ( 12 ) (ix) 19/05/2026 – The petitioner submitted representation to respondent No.2. (x) 30.5.2026 – Contract came to be terminated. (xi) 22.6.2026 – The order was passed in Writ Petition No. 4698/2026 in which the termination order dated 30.5.2026 was challenged and on the basis of statement made by learned counsel for respondents that it would grant opportunity of hearing and consequently withdraw the order, the petition was disposed of. (xii) 9.7.2026 - The petitioner filed written notes of argument. (xiii) 25.7.2026 – Termination order was passed. (ivx) 01/06/2026 – The notice calling upon the petitioner to remain present on 2.6.2026 was issued. 9. At the outset, it is required to be noted that this is a second round of litigation and earlier Writ Petition No.3950 of 2026 preferred by the petitioner, in which the show cause notices dated 15/04/2026 and 17/04/2026 and other show cause notices were challenged, was disposed of with directions to respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing any order. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that termination order dated 30.5.2026 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 4698/2026 in which a statement was made by learned counsel for respondent/corporation that hearing would be ( 13 ) granted and consequently the order impugned would be withdrawn and therefore, petition was disposed of. In pursuance of the order passed, the representatives of the petitioner have attended the proceedings in which the opportunity of hearing was granted. The record of the case shows that even the reply was filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice. The document produced on record dated further shows that proceedings in the meeting, where hearing was granted, are duly mentioned. It is in this background, if the dates mentioned above are considered, then it would be crystal clear that labeling the action taken by the respondent-Authorities in floating e-tender for the appointment of new agency cannot be called as a pre-determined view, which is for the following reasons. 10. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner shows that in reference various communications are mentioned. The references are dated 28.4.2026, 21.4.2026 and 20.5.2026 communications. The parties have not disputed that out of the aforesaid, communications dated 28.4.2026, 20.5.2026 and 21.5.2026 were duly issued by the respondents to the petitioner. 11. In the aforesaid background, if the State or the respondent- Authorities considered it proper to change the agency for cleaning the public toilets, so also for keeping the premises of bus stand in neat and ( 14 ) clean condition and for that issued communication dated 11/03/2026 by which two agencies were selected and further communication dated 02/04/2026 by which the lawyers were appointed to file the caveat, then it cannot be said that action is pre-determined. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the show cause notices asking to remove deficiencies stated above were duly replied with. It further cannot be ignored that footfall on the public bus stand has increased drastically since last 34 years, though the petitioner has claimed that it has been rendering the services for the last 34 years, but it cannot be ignored that fact, by itself, would not crystallize any enforceable right in favour of the petitioner, except a right to be treated fairly. 12. The contention of the petitioner that in the light of communications dated 11/03/2026 and 02/04/2026, grant of opportunity of hearing has become an empty formality, is liable to be rejected, since even before communications dated 11/03/2026 and 02/04/2026, show cause notices calling upon to remove deficiencies were issued to the petitioner. Merely because the respondents in order to provide uninterrupted services to the commuters/tourists have floated the e-tender and allotted the work to the third agency, which also included works which is not the subject matter of the agreement between the petitioner and the ( 15 ) respondents, that by itself, would not mean that the respondents had acted arbitrarily. 13. As regards the contention of the petitioner that show cause notice must satisfy twin conditions, i.e. material grounds be stated and a particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken should also be mentioned, are duly taken care of by the respondents. The show cause notice issued by the respondents clearly speaks about “performing work unsatisfactorily” and the order impugned also notes that the petitioner has not done any satisfactory work. It clearly shows that by way of show cause notice the stand was made crystal clear by the respondents, so that the petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to meet the issues raised. 14. As regards the action proposed to be taken, the show cause notice called upon the petitioner to state as to why the agreement should not be cancelled and by way of final order, the agreement was cancelled. Thus, the twin requirements laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment of Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) and others, (supra) stand satisfied. 15. We cannot ignore the fact that there is an agreement between the parties and rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by the said agreement. The disputed question of facts whether the deficiencies pointed ( 16 ) out in show cause notices were duly complied with or whether the respondents have done yearly inspection, appreciation of the same would not be permissible in writ jurisdiction. We are not saying that the disputed question 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. 16. There is one more aspect to the issue involved in the present matter. A cancellation of agreement of similar type of work i.e. cleaning of public toilets was assailed before the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur in Writ Petition No.1951 of 2026 (supra) in which Coordinate Bench has observed that the petitioner therein had remedy of filing a suit and/or filing an arbitration proceeding. The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19228 of 2026, which was dismissed. The judicial consistency also demands, the same view be taken in the present petition. Merely because there is no clause of arbitration in the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondents in the instant case is concerned, it cannot be said that Civil Court cannot decide the issue in question. Thus, the petitioner is not remediless. ( 17 ) 17. The contention of the respondents that maintaining public toilets is an essential activity also deserves due consideration. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that before termination, one month’s notice is required to be given does not survive for the consideration, since this Court in earlier round of litigation has directed that decision be taken by the respondents-Authorities by granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is not even the case of the petitioner that they have removed the deficiencies pointed out in the various references (earlier notices regarding unsatisfactory work) in the show cause notices. Though the petitioner has given a chart showing the expenses incurred, no supporting document is produced on record. As regards the contention of the petitioner that now amount of Rs.2/- would be charged from the passenger, suffice it to say that the said decision, is not assailed before this Court and therefore, cannot be dealt with in absence of specific challenge. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J) (ANIL S. KILOR, J) Signed by: Mr. R. S. Belkhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 15/09/2026 16:27:07