Bombay High Court
RAMDAS ATHAWALEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR GP AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the writ petition seeking a stay is premature and must await determination by the Joint Charity Commissioner, and that the interim application for criminal action under Section 340 CrPC is not expedient, leading to dismissal of both.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramdas Athawale, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking a stay of the order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner on 20 July 2026, which was pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner. The High Court held that because the appeal was still before the Joint Charity Commissioner, the petition could not be entertained and directed the Commissioner to decide the stay application within two weeks. In a related interim application, respondent No.5, Prakash Y. Ambedkar, sought to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging false claims of chairmanship and a contradictory tour programme. The Court referred to the principle that Section 340 actions are ordered only when expedient in the interest of justice, citing Pritish v. State of Maharashtra. Finding the issues contested and not warranting a criminal inquiry, the Court dismissed the interim application. Both the writ petition and the interim application were consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should grant a stay of the Deputy Charity Commissioner’s order pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner.
- Whether the court should order initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 340
Subjects
- Article 227
- stay of execution
- Charity Commissioner
- Section 340 CrPC
- interim application
- trust chairmanship
- expediency of justice
- high court writ jurisdiction
Judgment
903 wp 12289 of 2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.12289 OF 2026
Ramdas Athavale ... Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.27785 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.12289 OF 2026
Prakash Yashwantrao Ambedkar … Applicant
and
Ramdas Athawale … Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saket Mone, Mr. Raghav
SWAROOP
Taneja i/by Vidhii Partners, for Petitioner.
SHARAD Ms. Savita Prabhune, AGP for State.
PHADKE
Digitally signed
Mr. Prakash Y. Ambedkar, Applicant / Respondent No.5 present in person.
by SWAROOP
SHARAD PHADKE
Date: 2026.09.24
Mr. Sangharaj Rupwate with Mr. Akshay Dingale, for Respondent No.10.
18:20:18 +0530
Mr. Prathamesh Waikar i/by Mr. B.K.Barve, for Respondent No.15.
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 23 SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. Heard Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner and
Mr. Ambedkar – Respondent No.5 / Applicant, who appears in person.
2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction as an application preferred by the
Petitioner in an appeal, seeking stay to the execution and operation of the
SSP 1/4
903 wp 12289 of 2026.doc
order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner on 20 July 2026 in
Change Report No.ACC(Hosp.)/923/2011, is not heard and decided by the
learned Joint Charity Commissioner.
3. Since the appeal awaits adjudication by the Joint Charity
Commissioner, at this juncture, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
Petition.
4. However, it must be clarified that, when an application for stay to the
order impugned in a statutory appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority must
decide such application for stay expeditiously so that the appeal is not
rendered infructuous in the event the Appellant eventually succeeds in the
Appeal.
5. Learned Joint Charity Commissioner seized with Appeal No.96 of 2026
is thus requested to hear and decide the application for stay to the execution
and operation of the order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner in
Change Report No.ACC(Hosp.)/ 923 of 2011, as expeditiously as possible,
and, preferably, within a period of two weeks from the date of communication
of this order.
6. All contentions of all the parties, including the tenability of the appeal at
the instance of the Petitioner, are expressly kept open for consideration by the
learned Joint Charity Commissioner.
7. Writ Petition stands disposed.
SSP 2/4
903 wp 12289 of 2026.doc
IA(ST) No.27785 of 2026
8. The Applicant – Respondent No.5, has filed this Interim Application for
initiating an action against the Petitioner under the provisions of Section 340
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 379 of the BNSS, 2023).
9. I have heard Mr. Ambedkar, the applicant in person. Two grounds were
urged by Mr. Ambedkar. One, the Petitioner has falsely claimed himself to be
the Chairman of the Trust. Second, the tour programme published by the
Press Information Bureau on 8 September 2026 indicates that in his capacity
as the Minister for Social Justice the Petitioner was to visit Bilaspur and
Raipur on 9 September 2026 and, yet, on 9 September 2026 itself, the
Petitioner has affirmed the Petition in Mumbai.
10. The position as regards the initiation of action under Section 340 of the
Code, 1973 is well settled. It is only in those cases where the Court finds that
it would be expedient in the interest of justice that, an action under Section
340 of the Code, 1973, would be justified. A useful reference in this context
can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pritish V/s.
State of Maharashtra and Ors.1
11. In the facts of the case, this Court finds that the status of the Petitioner
as the Chairman of the Trust a matter of contest. As regards the tour
programme, suffice to note that, the Court is not expected to embark upon an
1 (2002) 1 SCC 253
SSP 3/4
903 wp 12289 of 2026.doc
inquiry as to whether as per the tour programme the Petitioner No.1 did visit
Bilaspur and Raipur on 9 September 2026 and as what time the Petitioner
No.1 came to Mumbai.
12. To conclude, the grounds raised in the application do not render an
inquiry under Section 340 of the Code, expedient in the interest of justice.
13. The Interim Application thus stands disposed.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )
SSP 4/4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.