Bombay High Court
LILAVATI KIRTILAL MEHTA MEDICAL TRUST THROUGH MR PRASHANT MEHTAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The order dated 25.08.2026 is correct and not liable to interference.
Summary
The Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25.08.2026 passed by the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner sought interference with the order, alleging procedural deficiencies. The High Court examined the record and found that the order was correctly passed and did not warrant judicial interference. The Court directed the petitioner to comply with the procedural directions contained in paragraph 12 of the impugned order, without expressing any view on the merits. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the matter was left to the competent authority for due process. The decision underscores the principle that courts will not disturb administrative orders absent clear error.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate standard for judicial interference with the order dated 25.08.2026?
- Does the petitioner have a right to challenge the order on procedural grounds?
Subjects
- writ petition
- order interference
- due process
- high court
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
6. WP 4586-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4586 OF 2026
Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust .Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .Respondent
ANAND
SUDHAKAR Mr. Dikshat Mehra a/w. Ms. Honey Chandnani i/b. Rajani Associates,
SUDAME Advocates, for the Petitioner
Digitally signed by
ANAND SUDHAKAR
SUDAME
Ms. R. V. Newton, APP, for the Respondent – State
Date: 2026.10.01
21:18:51 +0530
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : 01.10.2026
P. C.
1. Heard Mr. Mehra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.
Newton, learned APP for the Respondent – State.
2. I have perused the record of the case and considered the
submissions made on behalf of Petitioner. The order dated 25.08.2026
does not call for any interference of this Court. It is a correct order
passed in accordance with what is stated therein. However, without
opining anything on merits, if the Petitioner follows the directions
contained in paragraph No.12 of the said order, it is needless to state
that the concerned competent authority shall follow the due process of
law in determining the steps taken by Petitioner. All contentions of
Petitioner are otherwise expressly kept open without anything been
Anand 1 of 2
6. WP 4586-2026.doc
opined by this Court on merits of the matter.
3. The Petition is disposed of.
(MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)
Anand 2 of 2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.