{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4266 OF 2010 Vijay s/o Vilasrao Gangane Petitioner Versus Kishor s/o Kalyanrao Gangane and others Respondents Mr.R.N.Dhorde, advocate holding for Mr.R.L.Kute, advocate for petitioner Mr.V.D.Salunke, advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.P.V.Mandlik, Senior Counsel holding for Mr.Amol Gandhi, advocate for Respondents No.3, 4 and 5. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P. For Respondents No.10 to 12. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 6 th September, 2010 PER COURT: 1 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 The petitioner is raising exception to the order dated 20.04.2010, passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Division, Latur in Application No.3/2010 thereby issuing directions in respect of cancellation of the contract entered into by Tuljabhavani Mandir Trust. It is informed that as a consequence of issuance of impugned directions, the contract entered into by the Trust with the petitioner on 11.09.2009 is also cancelled. The contract is in respect of collection of cash, gold and sliver offerings {2} put by the devotees in the offering box. The duration of the contract is stated to be for one year commencing from 11.09.2009. 3 The grievance of the petitioner, in this petition, is that he has not been properly served with the notice and the signature appearing on the acknowledgment, xerox copy of which is annexed at page 146 to the petition, is not that of the petitioner. It is contended that fabricated record in respect of service of notice has been prepared and order has been passed behind back of the petitioner. 4 The contract in respect of collection of offerings was also entered into by the Mandir trust with some other individuals. In view of the impugned directions issued by the Joint Charity Commissioner, the contract entered into by the Mandir trust with other individuals, who are also similarly situated, has been cancelled. The order passed by the learned Single Judge, in a petition of similar nature i.e. Writ Petition No.3708/2010 is brought to my notice. The learned Single Judge, in para 6 of the order, has observed thus: “The petitioner’s private right of collecting offerings is allegedly breached due to the termination of contract. He cannot seek public law remedy by filing Writ Petition when violation of private right is alleged. The petition is therefore not maintainable. Secondly, it involves disputed questions of facts, since the {3} petitioner’s case is that he did not commit any misconduct whereas, the respondent no.3 Trust alleged that he had collected the offerings from seven (7) boxes though was eligible to collect only from three (3) boxes. Under the circumstances, the Petition is dismissed.” The matter was taken up in Letters Patent Appeal by the concerned petitioner and while dealing with the matter, the Division Bench has observed thus: “The cause of action for the appellant, in clear terms, is cancellation of his contract on two grounds – firstly, the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner and secondly, in respect of violation of terms of contract noticed by the managing committee of the Trust. Challenge to the order made by the appellant was considered from that angle.” The Division Bench of this Court, considering the contentions raised in the Letters Patent Appeal, has confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5 Instant petition also raises similar issues. So far as contention raised by the petitioner that he has not been properly served with the notice and fabricated record, in that regard, has been created, is also a matter which is required to be dealt with on consideration of the evidence, that would be placed on record. The question posed in the petition in respect of service of notice is also a disputed question of fact which is required to be dealt with by the {4} fact finding Court. 6 Considering the nature of challenge raised in this petition, which is in the nature of private contract, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, no interference is called for. Petition is devoid of substance. 7 Writ Petition, therefore, stands rejected. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/wp426610