MUMBAI, May 14 -- Expressing strong displeasure over the petitioner's conduct, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday allowed the withdrawal of a plea challenging the board composition of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust and seeking an urgent stay on its proposed board meeting on May 16. A division bench of justices Advait Sethna and Sandesh Patil questioned petitioner Suresh Patilkhede's standing in the case, noting that he was not a party to the original representation against the trust before the charity commissioner regarding alleged violations under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. "We are constrained to observe that these proceedings bring about a rather shocking state of affairs," the bench said. In his petition, Patilkhede, a 61-year-old Thane resident, had argued that the trust's existing structure violated an amendment to the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, implemented on September 1, 2025. The amendment introduced significant changes in the appointment process of trustees, limiting perpetual trustees to a maximum of 25% of the board. During the hearing on Wednesday, senior advocate and former Madras high court judge T Raja, representing Patilkhede, argued that the current board structure consists of six trustees-chairman Noel Tata, vice-chairman Venu Srinivasan, Vijay Singh, Jimmy Tata, Jehangir HC Jehangir, and Darius Khambata. Out of these, he said, three are perpetual or life trustees-Noel Tata, Jimmy Tata, and Jehangir. "Having 50% perpetual trustees on the board is in violation of the amended section of the Act. A modification of the constitution of the board is required. The present board is incompetent. In case an incompetent committee takes any decision during the meeting, it will be illegal and invalid," Raja said. The petition sought a complete reconstitution of the board and an interim stay on board meetings, including the one scheduled on May 16. It also aimed to declare all decisions made by the board after September 1, 2025, null and void. The court, however, said that it failed to understand the urgency of the matter. The bench said that if any allegedly illegal decision is eventually taken in a board meeting, the petitioner can challenge it subsequently rather than seeking a pre-emptive restraint. Regarding the composition of the trust, senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Janak Dwarkadas, representing the board members, contended that if the petitioner's contention to retrospectively apply the amendment to the Act is considered, then thousands of trusts in Maharashtra would be affected. "The government has specifically issued a notification stating the amendment would be applied prospectively and not retrospectively. If it is interpreted in the way he is saying, then the trustees of so many trusts will have to be removed," they said. Subsequently, the bench found out that the representations made before the charity commissioners were not made by Patilkhede. While senior advocate Raja informed the court that it was a "mistake" on the petitioner's part, the court remarked, "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 is made by somebody, someone else comes to the court. This isn't a mistake at all." Raja then sought permission to withdraw the petition....