Appointment of Administrator Without Statutory Committee Violates Shingnapur Trust Act: Bombay High Court

In a significant ruling addressing the limits of executive power, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed a Government Resolution (GR) that appointed the District Collector of Ahilyanagar as an Administrator for the Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan Trust. The bench, comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar, ruled that the state government cannot bypass the mandatory statutory requirement of constituting a Management Committee before appointing an Administrator to oversee temple affairs.

A Hasty Transition: Disputed Appointment of Administrator

The conflict originated when the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification on September 22, 2025, bringing the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 into effect. Simultaneously, the state appointed the Collector of Ahilyanagar as the Administrator of the Trust, effectively removing the elected board of trustees. The petitioner, Bhagwat Sopan Bankar, challenged this move, arguing that the government acted with mala fide intent, citing that no mismanagement had been established in the reports provided by the Charity Commissioner to warrant such drastic intervention.

The Legal Mandate and Executive Overreach

The court scrutinized the structure of the 2018 Act, specifically Section 5 , which mandates the state government to constitute a "Management Committee" consisting of a Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Treasurer, and members. The bench highlighted that the Act provides no provision for a "stop-gap" arrangement that allows for the appointment of an Administrator until such a committee is formed.

Justice Kankanwadi, writing for the bench, underscored that "the executive cannot invoke the purpose of the Act to justify a procedure that the Act itself does not permit." The court noted that administrative convenience does not justify ignoring the framework set by the legislature.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies that the government must adhere strictly to the statute when exercising its powers:

• "There is absolutely no provision under the Act, which empowers the State to make a stop gap arrangement by making an appointment as Administrator of a person or authority for the management of the Trust till the Management Committee under the Act comes into force."
• "The Declaration of the appointed day and the simultaneous appointment of an Administrator, without adherence to the statutory pre-conditions, is neither transparent nor rational."
• "Once the legislature has occupied the field, the executive cannot, under Article 162, create an alternative administrative mechanism."

Statutory Vacuum or Administrative Necessity?

The state government attempted to justify the appointment by arguing that the 2018 Act had overriding effect over the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and that the appointment was necessary to prevent a management vacuum. However, the court remained unimpressed, noting that if the government had properly prepared to implement the Act—by framing the necessary rules and regulations—the difficulties cited would not have arisen. The bench remarked that the state government "ought to have made the appointment of the necessary members of the Committee... simultaneously with declaration of appointed day."

Status Quo Ante: Returning Control to the Trustees

Declaring the acts done by the Administrator and the subsequently appointed committee as illegal, the High Court ordered the restoration of the situation to what it was prior to September 22, 2025. The Collector of Ahilyanagar has been ordered to hand over the movable and immovable properties of the Trust back to the erstwhile trustees within seven days.

While the state government is at liberty to implement the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 in accordance with proper procedure, including the framing of rules under Section 46, the court has ensured that the interim period until such implementation is managed by the previously authorized body. This ruling serves as a stern reminder that even in the context of high-profile religious trust management, statutory compliance is mandatory and administrative efficiency cannot be used as an excuse for bypassing the rule of law.