Bombay High Court Pulls Up Petitioner Over Plea To Stay Sir Ratan Tata Trust Board Meeting, Petition Withdrawn

A vacation bench of Justices Advait Sethna and Sandesh Patil expressed shock after noting that petitioner Suresh Patilkhede had sought a stay on the SRTT board meeting based on representations pending before the Charity Commissioner even though those representations had been filed by unidentified third parties and not by the petitioner himself.

“We are constrained to observe that these proceedings bring about a rather shocking State of affairs. This is more so for the reason because certain representations are made to the Charity Commissioner with regards to the alleged violation and non compliance under section 30(a)(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. On a query put, it has been informed that these 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 Bench observed.

The plea filed by Suresh Patilkhede contended that the composition of the SRTT board violated the amended Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, which came into force on September 1, 2025 and limits lifetime or perpetual trustees to 25 per cent of the total board strength unless otherwise permitted by the original trust deed.

Senior advocate T Raja appearing for the petitioner, argued that three out of six trustees were perpetual trustees and therefore the board was illegally constituted.

However, the bench questioned the maintainability of the petition and remarked:

“Look at the prayers. How is it maintainable. It is deemed that the Charity Commissioner will look into this. Your petition seems to be a caveat. Do not preempt anything. This is too early for you to say all this.”

Appearing for certain board members, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the petitioner was neither a trustee nor a beneficiary of the trust and pointed out that the State Government had already clarified through a notification that the amendment to the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act would operate prospectively and not retrospectively.

Senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas submitted that the SRTT board had already held at least four meetings after the amendment came into force in September 2025 and that no objection had been raised earlier, contending that the petitioner had approached the court belatedly only days before the scheduled meeting.

When the petitioner's counsel later attempted to explain that reliance on third-party representations was a “mistake”, Justice Sethna remarked:

“This is not a mistake, there is something more but we don't want to use harsh words. There has to be some semblance. Just because there are certain parties involved. Representation made by somebody, someone else comes in the court. This isn't a mistake at all.”

Following these observations, the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the plea, which the bench allowed.