[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
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.
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.]
