Not Transparent: Bombay High Court Quashes Govt Resolution Appointing Administrator For Shree Shanaishwar Temple

The Bombay High Court has quashed the Government Resolution appointing the Collector, Ahilyanagar as Administrator for Shree Shanaishwar Temple.

The Aurangabad Bench was hearing a Writ Petition and said that such appointment of an Administrator is neither transparent nor rational.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar observed, “Apart from the statutory inconsistencies noted hereinabove, the action of the State Government also falls foul of the constitutional guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. … arbitrariness is the very antithesis of equality. When a statute prescribes the precise manner in which transition of management must occur, the executive cannot selectively apply portions of the Act and bypass the mandatory requirement of constituting a Management Committee under Section 5. 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.”

The Bench added that the exercise of power is vulnerable on the touchstone of Article 14, being arbitrary, unguided and inconsistent with the rule of law.

Advocate S.B. Talekar appeared on behalf of the Petitioners, while Additional Government Pleader (AGP) A.R. Kale appeared on behalf of the Respondents. Advocates S.D. Kotkar and Tejas Kotkar appeared on behalf of the Applicants.

Brief Facts

The Petitioners contended that the Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan Trust was duly registered under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 in the year 1961. The Petitioners were elected trustees of the said Trust and accordingly, the change report was filed with the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The said report was allowed by an order in 2021 and thereafter, the Petitioners took charge and entered the office.

Their term was to expire on December 31, 2025 and the Government abruptly brought the same to an end by a Government Resolution issued by Deputy Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department and appointed Collector, Ahilyanagar as an Administrator to manage the affairs of the Trust. Being aggrieved, they approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “… we are of the view that power of judicial review can be exercised in the present case also. … The scheme of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 manifests a deliberate legislative choice to entrust management of the Trust to a duly constituted Management Committee and not to any executive authority. Once the legislature has occupied the field, the executive cannot, under Article 162, create an alternative administrative mechanism.”

The Court reiterated that the executive cannot exercise a power that the statute does not confer. It noted that the appointment of the Collector as Administrator, without the existence of a Committee whose failure could trigger Section 36 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018, amounts to executive legislation - an exercise clearly impermissible within our constitutional framework.

“Now, when we have arrived at the conclusion that the State Government had no power to appoint Collector, Ahilyanagar as Administrator under the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018, it is obvious that the events those are contemplated under Section 3 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 cannot be said to have been come into force or come into existence”, it remarked.

The Court was of the view that the action taken by the State Government of appointing the Collector, Ahilyanagar as Administrator by Government Resolution is illegal and, therefore, the acts done by the Administrator and the Committee Constituted by him without any authority are illegal and, therefore, status quo ante is required to be granted.

“It will have to be held that the possession of the Trust property has not been taken as contemplated under the Act i.e. as per Sections 3 and 4 of the Shingnapur Trust act, 2018 and the position prior to the issuance of Government Resolution dated 22.09.2025 regarding appointment of Collector, Ahilyanagar as Administrator, deserves to be restored”, it also observed.

Conclusion

The Court further reiterated that the Government was within its power to declare the appointed day, however, without establishing a Committee under Section 5 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018, it could not have proceeded to take action of taking the possession of the properties of the erstwhile Trust.

“Before parting, we deem it appropriate to observe that the effectiveness of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 requires timely framing of rules under Section 46 and regulations under Section 47. These subordinate legislative measures are essential for transparent appointment of the Management Committee, qualification standards, operational protocols, and financial accountability. We expect the State Government to complete the rule-making process with due expedition so that the statutory mandate is operationalised in its entirety”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the Government Resolution.

Cause Title- Shri. Bhagwat Sopan Bankar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:34868-DB)

Click here to read/download the Judgment