SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
VIBHA KANKANWADI, HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
Bhagwat Sopan Bankar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 12208 of 2025, Civil Application Nos. 12131, 12385 of 2025
Decided On : 12-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.B. Talekar
For the Respondents: A.R. Kale, S.D. Kotkar, Tejas Kotkar

The court held that the appointment of an Administrator without following statutory procedures outlined in the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018, is illegal and violates principles of reasonableness and transparency under Article 14.

Headnote:(A) Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan Trust (Shingnapur) Act, 2018 - Sections 3, 4, 5, 36, 44, and 48 - Legality of appointment of Administrator by State Government - Court held that the appointment of Collector as Administrator was illegal as it contravened required statutory provisions, as there was no Management Committee constituted prior to such appointment. (Paras 6, 10, 21 and 22).

(B) Judicial review and executive powers - The framework of law established prohibiting the State from delegating authority where the Act prescribes a specific body for the exercise of power - Section 36 applies only when the Committee exists and fails to perform its duties. (Paras 19, 20 and 21).

(C) Principles of reasonableness, transparency, and non-arbitrariness in government action - Actions taken without statutory backing or under administrative convenience violate the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Paras 19 and 19-B).

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were elected trustees removed by the Government Resolution appointing an Administrator without following statutory procedure outlined in the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 - No mismanagement found by the Charity Commissioner, and the Government's actions were driven by mala fide intentions.

Findings of Court:
The Government Resolution and appointment of Administrator quashed due to lack of legal authority and breach of statutory provisions - Status quo ante maintained requiring the Government to take appropriate statutory actions post-rule framing.

Issues: Whether the Collector's appointment as Administrator was lawful under the Shingnapur Trust Act and if it was necessary for the Government to follow all procedural requirements before such appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the State's actions were arbitrary and lacked constitutional authority, ruling that trust management must adhere strictly to legislative conditions, with statutory provisions delineating roles distinctly.

Result: Writ Petition partly allowed; the Government Resolution and subsequent communications quashed and status prior to the resolution restored.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.B. Talekar for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. A.R. Kale for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and learned Advocate Mr. S.D. Kotkar holding for learned Advocate Mr. Tejas Kotkar for the applicants in Civil Application No.12385 of 2025.

3. It will not be out of place to mention here that Civil Application No.12385 of 2025 has been filed for intervention, wherein the applicant contends that he is the person, on whose complaint and representations, the State Government has intervened in the provisions of Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan Trust (Shingnapur) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the “ Shingnapur Trust Act ”) and appointed an Administrator over the Trust and, therefore, he intends to intervene. We do not find any substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. He might have filed complaint or representations, but he has no personal interest and has not demonstrated except by way of verification. No separate affidavit has also been filed showing his interest. Hence, the said application deserves to be rejected.

4. There is another application i.e. Civil Application No.12131 of 2025 filed by the UCO Bank for intervention for clarifying the order dated 04.10.2025 passed by this Court, as to for which respondents the bank should allow to operate the bank account of the Trust. It will not be out of place to mention here that in our order dated 04.10.2025, we had stated that we were not inclined to go into the question of fact as to whether the charge has been taken or not, but it can be considered at a later point of time when the matter would be heard taking into consideration the questions about the legality about the action of the State has been raised and, therefore, we propose to dispose of the said application along with the main petition itself now.

5. The petitioners contend that the Trust was duly registered under the MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC TRUST ACT in the year 1961. The petitioners are elected trustees of the said Trust in the meeting held on 23.12.2020. Accordingly, the change report was filed with the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. The said change report came to be allowed by order dated 15.09.2021. Thereafter, the petitioners had taken charge and entered the office on 01.01.2021. The term of the petitioners was to expire on 31.12.2025. Now, the Government has abruptly brought their term to an end by Government Resolution dated 22.09.2025 issued by Deputy Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department and appointed Collector, Ahilyanagar as an Administrator to manage the affairs of the Trust. The Government of Maharashtra has passed a Shingnapur Trust Act , 2018 so as to reconstitute the Public Trust Registered under the name Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan at Shingnapur, District Ahilyanagar and to provide for better administration of Shree Shanaishwar Temple. The Act received assent of Hon’ble Governor on 09.08.2018 and it was published in Government Gazette on 13.08.2018. However, the Act was not brought into force at any point of time prior to 22.09.2025 for the reasons best known to the Government. Notification was issued on 22.09.2025 by the Government to bring the said Act into force.

6. The petitioners have also contended that a Calling Attention Motion No.452 was moved by Shri. Chandrashekhar Bawankule, MLA and thereupon, the Government of Maharashtra had called an issue-wise objective report from Charity Commissioner. The Charity Commissioner then immediately called report from Deputy Charity Commissioner, Ahilyanagar. The Deputy Charity Commissioner, Ahilyanagar then submitted the issue-wise report on 15.12.2023. Yet, the Charity Commissioner had further directed the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Ahilyanagar to conduct thorough enquiry and submit a fact finding report by letter dated 15.01.2024

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top