Created by Fuzzy Cloud

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

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


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.