Petitioner Suresh Tulsiram Patilkhede who was seeking a stay on the May 16 board meeting of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) withdrew his plea before the Bombay High Court on Wednesday after the court strongly criticised his conduct and questioned the basis of the petition.
A vacation bench of Justices Advait Sethna and Sandesh Patil said it was “shocked” to learn that the petitioner had not himself filed the representations before the Charity Commissioner on which his case was based. The court observed that the representations had instead been made by third parties.
The bench said, “We are constrained to observe that the proceedings bring out a shocking state of affairs. This is more so for the reason that certain representations are made to the charity commissioner with regards to violation of section 30(A) 2. On a query put to petitioner, I have been informed that the representations are pending. What is disturbing is that these representations aren’t made by the petitioner but by some other party whose particulars aren’t known to this court.”
The court observed that the lawyer had said that the petitioner admits it was a mistake and to condone it.
It also pointed out that the petition was moved on grounds of extreme urgency as the meeting was on May 16 and it would violate the section and the resolution passed should not be acted upon.
The court expressed prima facie displeasure in the manner the proceedings had been filed and said that the petitioner’s request to withdraw was granted. It added that if they wanted to apply somewhere else, they could, but strictly in accordance with law.
Patilkhede had challenged the composition of the SRTT board, contending that it violated amendments to the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act that came into force on September 1, 2025. The petitioner argued that three of the trust’s six trustees were perpetual trustees, exceeding the amended law’s 25 per cent cap unless specifically permitted by the trust deed.
The petition said that the board must first be reconstituted before any meeting could be held, claiming decisions taken at the May 16 meeting would otherwise be illegal. However, the bench questioned the plea’s maintainability, observing that the Charity Commissioner was already empowered to examine such issues.
“Do not pre-empt anything. This is too early for you to say all this,” Justice Patil remarked.
Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Janak Dwarkadas, appearing for some board members, argued that Patilkhede was neither a trustee nor a beneficiary of SRTT. They also contended that the amendment was prospective, not retrospective, and noted that the board had already held several meetings since September 2025 without objection.