A petition that sought to stay the May 16^th board meeting of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) was struck down as “withdrawn” by the Bombay High Court today, according to a report.

Expressing displeasure over the "conduct" of the petitioner, the division bench of Justices Advait Sethna and Sandesh Patil said they were “shocked” to note that the petitioner Suresh Patilkhede, who sought a stay on the meeting on the ground that some representations have already been made against the formation of the SRTT board, was not the person who had filed the representation before the Charity Commissioner, reported Live Law.

The petition had argued that the SRTT board composition violates the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, particularly the second amendment to the Act which was enforced from September 1, 2025. The amendment caps lifetime or perpetual trustees at 25% of the total board strength unless explicitly permitted by the original trust deed, stated the report. The advocate, who represented Patilkhede, said of the six trustees on the board, three are perpetual trustees and thus, the same violates the amended Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.

The advocate argued that the board meeting must be permitted only after its re-constituted to conform with the provisions of the statute. The senior advocate argued that since the board itself is “illegal” as it does not conform with the amended statute, any decision or resolution passed at the meeting will also be illegal and invalid.

The bench questioned “the maintainability of the prayers made in the petition”, one of which was seeking a direction to the Charity Commissioner to ensure that the amended statute provisions are complied with.

Justice Patil remarked that since the plea if before the Commissioner it “is too early for you to say all this.”

On behalf of the board members, senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Janak Dwarkadas, pointed out that the petitioner is neither a beneficiary nor a trustee of the trust. Thousands of trusts in Maharashtra would be affected if the petitioner’s contention was to retrospectively apply the amendment to the MPT Act, argued the advocates.

Incidentally, the advocates pointed out that the government has specifically issued a notification stating the amendment would be applied prospectively and not retrospectively. Importantly, the SRTT board had met four times since September 2025, and the petitioner had never raised a grievance then, said advocate Dwarkadas.

While the petitioner’s advocate admitted that plea with the Charity Commissioner was by some third parties and would have been a “mistake” on the part of the petitioner, justice Sethna reportedly said: "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... We are not making any other comment now.”

With this, the bench disposed of the petition after the petitioner’s advocate sought leave to withdraw the plea.