A commission for minority rights serves a recommendatory role rather than an adjudicatory one. It lacks the jurisdiction to interfere in private commercial disputes or ongoing valid legal proceedings, and its notice issued in such matters is subject to judicial review under writ jurisdiction for being ultra vires.

JUDGMENT (Per Bharati Dangre, J.) :-

1. Petitioner No.1, a banking company, incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 alongwith its Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Group General Counsel, Head of Department of Special Operations and an employee, have approached this Court, seeking issuance of writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 23/07/2024 issued by Respondent No.2-Maharashtra State Minorities Commission (hereinafter referred to as, “Minorities Commission”), asking them to attend the hearing, scheduled before it on 01/08/2024.

A writ of prohibition or a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of prohibition is also sought restraining Respondent No.2 from entertaining and/or proceeding with the hearing of the impugned complaint.

2. On the Petition being listed before us on 01/08/2024, the learned senior counsel representing the Minorities Commission informed us that the hearing was re-scheduled to 02/09/2024 and pursuant thereto, upon the affidavits being filed by the Respondents, we have taken up the Petition for hearing.

3. We have heard learned senior counsel Mr.Shirish Gupte alongwith learned senior counsel Mr.Kevic Setalvad i/b Aagma Law Associates for the Petitioners, whereas learned senior counsel Mr.Anil Sakhare alongwith Mr.Rohan Mirpury has represented Minorities Commission. Respondent No.3-the Complainant, who has lodged the complaint with Minorities Commission, is represented by learned senior counsel Mr.Abad Ponda alongwith Mr.Kushal Mor and Mr.Marmik Shah.

The State of Maharashtra is represented by Ms.Sheetal Malvankar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

By consent of the parties, it is agreed to take up the Petition for final hearing at the stage of admission and the learned counsel are heard in support of their stand adopted in the Petition.

4. On 22/07/2024, Respondent No.3-Mr.Rajesh Mehta, projecting himself to be the permanent trustee of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (hereinafter referred to as, “LKMM Trust”) lodged a complaint with Vice Chairperson of Minority Commission, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai alleging severe harassment and mental torture caused to him and his late father Mr.Kishor Mehta, an eminent person belonging to Jain Minority Community, by the Senior Management and Recovery Department of HDFC Bank, allegedly in collusion with the erstwhile trustees of LKMM Trust and attributing that this harassment caused death of Mr.Kishor Mehta on 20/05/2024.

The complaint alleged that his family was engaged in a fierce litigation with erstwhile trustees of LKMM Trust, with regard to the control of LKMM Trust and Lilavati Hospital for last two decades and the legal battle was carried upto the highest Court and pursuant to the order dated 18/09/2023 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Assistant Charity Commissioner vide his order dated 14/12/2023, rejected the claim of trusteeship of the erstwhile trustees, thereby finally giving his family the opportunity to take over the management and control of LKMM Trust and Lilavati Hospital. It is also stated in the complaint that in the year 2002, HDFC Bank Ltd, being part of consortium of banks, had initiated the recovery proceedings against the borrower company, M/s Beau