18-WP-7273-2026 (C).doc Mayur IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7273 OF 2026 Maseeh Ahmed ...Petitioner Versus Arshad Muktar And Ors ...Respondents ... Adv. Prabha Badadare, for the Petitioner. Adv. B.V. Samant, Addl. G.P., a/w Mr. A.R. Deolekar, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 8 and 9. ... CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 18th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondent-State . 2. The instant Writ Petition is preferred for the following substantive relief: “(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issued appropriate direction to Respondents No. 2 to decide Petitioner’s Application being Application No.1/2023 before Respondent No.8 under Section 41(2) of The Maharashtra Public Trust Act filed against Respondents No.1 to 7 which is pending since 17/01/2023 for hearing.” 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would urge that the 1 MAYUR KONDIRAM ADANE Digitally signed by MAYUR KONDIRAM ADANE Date: 2026.09.21 10:46:47 +0530 18-WP-7273-2026 (C).doc Petitioner is aggrieved by the arbitrary inaction on the part of the Respondent No.8, whereby Application No. 1/2023, for inquiry into the alleged illegal activities of Respondent Nos.1 to 7, filed before Respondent No. 8 under Section 41(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, is pending adjudication since 17th January, 2023. No decision on the said Application is taken, until date. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner confines his prayer only to the extent that a direction be issued to Respondent No. 8 to decide the aforesaid pending Application. In view thereof, we do not find it appropriate to keep the matter pending. 5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits of the controversy, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with an observation that in case Application No. 1/2023 dated 17th January 2023 is still pending, Respondent No. 8 shall proceed to consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law within two months from the date of presenting this Order before Respondent No.8. 6. It is clarified that the Respondent No.8 shall afford full opportunity of hearing to all affected parties/stakeholders, particularly Respondent Nos.1 to 7, prior to passing of any final Order. 7. We further clarify that we have not adverted to the merits of 2 18-WP-7273-2026 (C).doc the case, and all contentions of the parties are left open to be urged before the concerned Respondent Authority. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands Disposed Of. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 3