Suresh Tulsiram Patikhede vs State Of Maharashtra Thru Ministry Of ...

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 5046 Bom
Judgement Date : 13 May, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Suresh Tulsiram Patikhede vs State Of Maharashtra Thru Ministry Of ... on 13 May, 2026

2026:BHC-OS:12326-DB
        Digitally signed
        by MULEY
          SHUBHAM
MULEY     PRAVINRAO
SHUBHAM Date:
PRAVINRAO 2026.05.13                                      1                 20-WPL-16647-2026.doc
           21:16:36
           +0530
                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                         WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 16647 OF 2026

                  Suresh Tulsiram Patikhede                                      ...Petitioner
                        Versus
                  State of Maharashtra Thru Ministry of
                  Law and Judicial Dept. & Ors.                                   ...Respondents


                                                -----------------
                  Mr. T. Raja, Senior Advocate a/w Abhijeet Badar, K. Aggarwal i/by Rahul
                  Agarwal for the Petitioner.
                  Smt. Jyoti Chavan, Addl.GP a/w Vikrant Parshurami, AGP for State.
                  Mr. Abhishek Singhvi, Senior Advocate a/w Janak Dwarkadas, Senior
                  Advocate, Avishkar Singhvi, Rohaan Cama, Indranil Deshmukh, Pratiksha
                  Basarkar and Karthika Sanjay i/by Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas for
                  Respondent No.3.
                                                -----------------

                                                              CORAM :   ADVAIT M. SETHNA AND
                                                                        SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

DATED : 13 MAY, 2026 (VACATION COURT) P.C.:-

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties for some time. We are constrained to observe that the Petition as filed brings to the fore, a rather shocking state of affairs.
2. This is inter alia for the reason that certain representations are made to the learned Charity Commissioner's office with regard to the alleged violation and non compliance of the statutory mandate under Section 30A(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. On a query put to the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner it has been informed to the Court Shubham 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2026 20:48:56 :::

2 20-WPL-16647-2026.doc that these representations are pending. What is disturbing is that such representations are not made on behalf of the Petitioner but by some other/third party whose details also are not known to the Court neither have been disclosed in this Petition filed before this Court.

3. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in response to the above, fairly states that this is a mistake which is committed at the behest of the Petitioner and which may be condoned.

4. It is also pertinent to mention that the Petition has been moved on the ground of extreme urgency. This being that the meeting of the said Trust is scheduled on 16 May 2026. According to the Petitioner, if such meeting is held it would be contrary to the mandate of Section 30A(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and therefore the same ought not to be held and/or in the alternative any decision taken ought not to be acted upon.

5. Considering the nature of prayers the least the Petitioner should have done is that the copies of the Petition ought to have been provided to the Respondents before the hearing, which is also in absentia in the present proceedings. This becomes all the more necessary, considering that the Petition was mentioned on 6 and 7 May 2026, on behalf of the Petitioner before the Division Bench headed by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice, as pointed to us by Mr. Dwarkadas, Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.3.

Shubham 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2026 20:48:56 :::

3 20-WPL-16647-2026.doc

6. The Court having expressed its prima facie displeasure as noted above, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner very fairly, on instructions, has sought leave to withdraw this Petition. In the given factual complexion, such leave to withdraw is granted.

7. In the event the Petitioner decides to pursue any other remedy before any competent authority, the Petitioner is not foreclosed from pursuing the same. Needless to mention that such course shall be adopted strictly in accordance with law.

8. When the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is invoked by the parties, they ought to act with utmost care, and circumspection so that the sanctity of such an extraordinary constitutional remedy is preserved, protected, and maintained.

9. With the above observations, the Petition is Disposed Of as Withdrawn.

10. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

      [SANDESH D. PATIL, J.]                      [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]




 Shubham                                                                            3/3



       ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026                ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2026 20:48:56 :::