##PAGE1##

2026:BHC-A S:44198-DB CNR No : HCBM010161382026 Digitally VIDYA VIDYA SURESH SURESHAMIN AMIN Date:

Vidya A2m02i6n.10.29

21:14:46 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5068 OF 2026

1. Shri. Vishnu Trimbak Warungase. 2. Shri. Dr. Rajendra Suresh Warade

3. Shri. Dilipkumar Dubalaji Deshmukh

4. Adv. Rahul Ashok Khutade

5. Dr. Kanchan Ramesh Desale ...Petitioners.

Vs.

1. The State of Maharashtra

2. High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Appellate Side.

3. The Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nashik & The Chairman of the Trust Shree Saptashrung Nivasini Devi, Saptashrung Gad, Nashik.

4. Smt. Anju Shende, Special Officer to the Hon’ble Chief Justice, Bombay High Court, presently serving as District Judge, Pune. ...Respondents.

_________

Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Rameshwar Gite a/w. Mr. Pravin Thorat, Ms. Tejaswini Pathave for the petitioners.

Mr. Milind Sathe, Advocate General a/w. Ms. N.S. Bhide, GP, Mr. O.A.

Chandurkar, Addl. GP, Ms. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for the State.

Mr. R.S. Datar for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Nikhil Adkine for respondent no. 4.

__________

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &

DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATE: 29 OCTOBER 2026 Judgment (Per G.S. Kulkarni, J.)

1. The present case is quite peculiar. The petitioners, who participated in the selection process for appointment as Trustees of “Shree Saptashrung Nivasini Devi, Saptashrung Gad, Nashik”, a charitable public trust [for short “the Trust”] challenge the legality, validity and propriety of the communication dated 14 March, 2026 issued by respondent no. 4, who was, at the relevant time, the Special Officer to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. By the impugned communication, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nashik, who is the ex-officio Chairman of the Trust under the Trust Deed, was informed that the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court has directed that the list of recommended Trustees of the Trust, dated 12 March, 2026 and published by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nashik, be withdrawn from the website and kept on hold until further directions, as also necessary steps be taken to ensure compliance with the directions at the earliest.

2. Acting upon the impugned communication as made by the Special Officer to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice/respondent no. 4, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nashik, passed an order on the same date, i.e., 14 March, 2026, inter alia, recording that, pursuant to the directions received from the High Court, the list of selected candidates published on the website has been withdrawn and would remain so, until further orders were received from the High Court. The petitioners, whose names figured in the list of selected Trustees published on the website, have accordingly challenged the communication issued by the Special Officer to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice/respondent No. 4, as well as the consequential order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nashik.

3. The principal contention of the petitioners is that the impugned communication issued by the Special Officer to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice/respondent no. 4, is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. They also challenge the correctness of the contents in paragraph 1 of the impugned communication. It is contended that also there is no basis, whatsoever in law, insofar as the directions as contained in paragraph 2 of the impugned communication are concerned.

4. The contentions advanced by Mr. Sakhare, learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioners are two-fold. Firstly, he submits that, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950, read with the Trust Deed and the scheme governing the Trust, which were being acted upon by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nashik in the capacity as the ex-officio Chairman of the said