Bombay High Court

RAVINDRA KARNJEKARversusNIKET V MEHTA AND ORS

Decided: 24 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The petition is dismissed in limine, and no mandamus is issued directing the Joint Charity Commissioner to follow section 41D(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.

Summary

The petitioner, Niket V. Mehta, filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus directing the Joint Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, to follow the specific procedure prescribed in section 41D(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and to expedite the pending application before the Commissioner. The Court noted that the petition sought to compel the adjudicating authority to adhere to a particular subsection rather than the entire procedure under section 41D, viewing this as an attempt to interfere with the authority's functioning. The Court expressed willingness to entertain the broader reliefs but refused to entertain the petition on its merits or to issue the specific mandamus sought. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, and all related interim applications were disposed of. The Court also declined to extend the interim relief previously granted, deeming the petitioner's motive to protract litigation.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can issue a mandamus directing the Joint Charity Commissioner to follow the specific procedure under section 41D(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.
Whether the petition should be heard on its merits despite the Court's reluctance to intervene in the procedural aspects of the Trust Act.
Whether the interim applications filed in the petition survive the dismissal of the main petition.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 227
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 — s. 41D, 41D(2)(c)

Subjects

mandamus
public trust
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act
section 41D
procedure
writ petition
Article 226
interim relief
dismissal in limine

Judgment

sns 56-wp-17461-2025+.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.17461 OF 2025

Niket V. Mehta … Petitioner

V/s.

Charu K. Mehta & Ors. … Respondents

WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5422 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5435 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5436 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5590 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7121 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7156 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5572 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5406 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5409 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5417 OF 2026

Mr. A.R. Pai a/w. Adv. Avadhut V. Patil, Adv. Sanika Gawade for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. Dakshesh Vyas, Adv. Abhishek
Prabhu Adv. Sankalpita Mullick, Adv. Jyoti Ghag, Adv. Tarun Mehra, Adv.
Ankit Singhal i/by Dua Associates for Respondent No.1 and for Applicant in
IA/5572/2026.
Mr. Ragherth Basant a/w. Adv. Aditya N. Raut, Adv. Utsav Trivedi, Adv.
Richa P. i/by Desai Desai Carrinjee & Mulla LLP for Respondent No.3.

Digitally
1/5
signed by
SUMEDH
SUMEDH NAMDEO
NAMDEO SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2026.10.05
15:10:32
+0530
sns 56-wp-17461-2025+.doc

Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. Rashmin Khandekar, Adv.
Dikshat Mehra, Adv. Devesh Juvekar, Adv. Mithilesh Chalke, Adv. Honey C.,
Adv. Rima Desai, Adv. Minal C., Adv. Monish Bhatia i/by Rajani Associates
for Respondent No.4 and for Applicant in IA/5590/2026.
Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. Piyush Raheja, Adv. Ameet
Naik, Adv. Madhu Gadodia, Adv. Vivek Dwivedi, Adv. Vinita Dandekar, Adv.
Aryan Garg i/by Naik Naik & Co, for Respondent No.2 and for Applicant in
IA/7121/2026.
Mr. Rishikesh Soni a/w. Adv. Chanakya Keswani, Adv. Tanmay Bhave, Adv.
Minhas Joshi, Adv. Aditi Singh i/by Economic Laws Practice for the
Applicant in IA/5422/2026, IA/5435/2026, IA/5436/2026.
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar (VC) a/w. Adv. Chanakya Keswani, Adv. Tanmay
Bhave, Adv. Minhas Joshi, Adv. Aditi Singh i/by Economic Law Practice for
the Respondent No.12 and for the Applicant in IA/7156/2026.
Mr. Karan Bhide a/w. Adv. Manisha Prajapati, Adv. M.Nakrani i/by Dhiresn
H. Shah for the Applicant in IA/5406/2026.
Mr. Manas N. Gawankar a/w. Adv. Shabbir Jariwala i/by Jariwala Associates
for the Applicant in IA/5409/2026.
Mr. Abhay Dhadiwal a/w. Adv. Monish Bhatia, Adv. Vidhi Karia, Adv. Prithvi
Sawla i/by Jayakar & Partners for the Applicant in IA/5417/2026.
Ms. Neha Bhide, GP a/w. Adv. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP, Adv. Gauri
Raghuvanshi, AGP for the Respondent-State.

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
DATE : 24th September, 2026.

P.C.:-

1) By this Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution

of India, the Petitioner, an alleged beneficiary of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta

Medical Trust seeks the following substantive reliefs:

“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of

mandamus or an appropriate writ order or direction, thereby

2/5
sns 56-wp-17461-2025+.doc

directing the Joint Charity Commissioner-I, HO Mumbai to

follow the procedure prescribed u/s 41D(2)(c) of the MPT Act,

1950 in Application No.23 of 2025 pending before the Joint

Charity Commissioner-I, HO Mumbai on such terms and

conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;

(b) In further to the preceding prayer, this Hon’ble Court be

pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction thereby

expediting the hearing and final disposal of the Application

No.23 of 2025 pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner-

I, HO Mumbai on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit;”

1.1) Prayer clauses (c) and (d) are the interim prayers

i.e. consequential reliefs.

2) Heard Mr. Pai, learned Advocate for the Petitioner at length,

Mr. Chinoy, learned senior counsel for the Respondent No.1, Mr. Joshi,

learned senior counsel for Respondent No.2, Mr. Basant for Respondent

No.3, Mr. Kamat, learned senior counsel for Respondent No.4, Mr.

Khandeparkar, for Respondent No.12 and Ms. Bhide, learned GP for the

Respondent-State.

3) It is an admitted fact on record that, the Petitioner has filed an

Application under Section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950

(‘Trust Act’), which is pending for adjudication before the learned Joint

3/5
sns 56-wp-17461-2025+.doc

Charity Commissioner-1, Mumbai.

4) We are unable to accept the insistence of the Petitioner that,

this Court must direct the concerned adjudicating Authority to follow the

procedure particularly prescribed under Section 41D(2)(c) of the Trust Act

instead of the entire procedure prescribed under Section 41D, under which

the Application is preferred by the Petitioner. It appears to us that, it is with

a view to sabotage the functioning of the concerned adjudicating Authority,

the Petitioner has sought such a relief.

5) We therefore openly expressed our view to the Petitioner’s

counsel that, except the word ‘(2)(c)’ in prayer clause (a), we are inclined

to allow the Petition in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

6) Mr. Pai, learned Advocate for the Petitioner however opposed

the said deletion and insisted that, the Petition be heard on merits.

7) We are afraid, we are unable to accede to such an argument.

We are unwilling to adhere to the Petitioner’s counsel’s contention to hear

the matter on merits for us to pass a particular Order desired by the

Petitioner. We deprecate such a stand adopted by the Petitioner.

8) We accordingly dismiss the Petition in limine.

9) In view of disposal of Petition, Interim Application No.5422 of

2026, Interim Application No.5435 of 2026, Interim Application No.5436 of

2026, Interim Application No.5590 of 2026, Interim Application No.7121 of

2026, Interim Application No.7156 of 2026, Interim Application No.5572 of

4/5
sns 56-wp-17461-2025+.doc

2026, Interim Application No.5406 of 2026, Interim Application No.5409 of

2026 and Interim Application No.5417 of 2026, do not survive and are

accordingly disposed off.

10) At this stage, Mr. Pai submitted that, ad-interim relief granted

by paragraph No.5 of Order dated 22 nd July 2026, may be continued for the

period of two weeks from today to enable the Petitioner to impugn present

Order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

11) It clearly appears to us that, the Petitioner somehow wants to

protract the litigation for the reasons best known to him, although this

Court is inclined to grant substantive reliefs to the Petitioner. We therefore

deem it fit to reject the said prayer.

(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

5/5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…