[Cites 42, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Uco Bank Through Its Branch Manager Ravi ... vs Bhagwat Sopan Bankar And Others on 12 December, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:34869-DB
wp-12208-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12208 OF 2025
1. Shri. Bhagwat Sopan Bankar
Age: 40 years, Occu.: President of Trust,
2. Vikas Nanasaheb Bankar
Age: 40 years, Occu.: Vice President
of Trust.
3. Balasaheb Bansi Borude
Age: 55 years, Occu.: Secretary,
4. Appasaheb Dnyandeo Shete
Age: 56 years, Occu.: Secretary,
5. Deepak Dadasaheb Darandale
Age: 37 years, Occu.: Treasurer,
6. Popat Ramchandra Shete
Age: 60 years, Occu.: Trustee,
7. Popat Laxman Kurhat
Age: 55 years, Occu.: Trustee,
8. Dr. Shivaji Annasaheb Darandale
Age: 61 years, Occu.: Trustee,
9. Chaburao Namdev Bhutkar
Age: 60 years, Occu.: Trustee,
10. Sunita Vitthal Adhav
Age: 36 years, Occu.: Trustee,
11. Shahuranm Raosaheb Darandale
Age: 60 years, Occu.: Trustee,
All R/o. Shingnapur, Tq. Newasa,
District Ahilyanagar. .. Petitioners
Versus
[1]
wp-12208-2025.odt
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Legal Remembrance
and Principal Secretary,
Law and Judiciary Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Administrator Shree
Shanaishwar Devasthan Trust
(Shingnapur) and Collector,
Ahilyanagar,
District Collectorate,
Ahilyanagar.
3. Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan
Trust (Shingnapur)
Through its Chief Executive Officer/
Collector, District Ahilyanagar.
4. Shri. Atul Chormare
Age: Major, Occu.: Deputy Collector,
R/o. Collectorate, Ahilyanagar,
District Ahilyanagar.
5. Shri. Sanjay Biradar
Age: Major, Occu.: Tahsildar,
R/o. Tahsildar Office, Newasa,
District Ahilyanagar.
6. Shri. Sanjay Lakhwal
Age: Major, Occu.: Block
Development Officer,
R/o. Panchayat Samiti,
Newasa, District Ahilyanagar.
7. Shri Ashish Shelke
Age: Major, Occ.: Assistant
Police Inspector,
R/o. Shani Shingnapur Police
Station, Tq. Newasa,
District Ahilyanagar.
8. Shri. Vinayak Patil
Age: Major, Occu.: Deputy Engineer,
[2]
wp-12208-2025.odt
R/o. Public Works Department Office,
Newasa, District Ahilyanagar.
9. Shri. Ganesh Khedkar
Age: Major, Occu.: Accounts Officer,
R/o. Collectorate, Ahilyanagar,
District Ahilyanagar.
10. Shri. Rajkumar Pund
Age: Major, Occu.: Deputy Treasury
Officer, R/o. Newasa,
District Ahilyanagar.
11. Shri Rajendra Wakchaure
Age: Major, Occu.: Naib Tahsildar
R/o. Tahsil Office, Newasa,
Tq. Newasa, District Ahilyanagar.
12. Shri. Vinayak Gore
Age: Major, Occu.: Circle Officer,
R/o. Circle Office, Ghodegaon,
Tq. Newasa, District Ahilyanagar.
13. Shri. Satish Pawar
Age: Major, Occu.: Talathi,
R/o. Shani Shingnapur,
Tq. Newasa, District Ahilyanagar.
14. Shri. Dadasaheb Borude
Age: Major, Occu.: Gramsevak,
R/o. Shani Shingnapur,
Tq. Newasa, District Ahilyanagar. .. Respondents
...
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12131 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.12208 OF 2025
UCO Bank
Through its Branch Manager,
Shani Shingnapur Branch .. Applicant
Versus
[3]
wp-12208-2025.odt
Shri. Bhagwat Sopan Bankar and others .. Respondents
...
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12385 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.12208 OF 2025
Rushikesh Vasant Shete .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
Through its Legal Remembrance and
Principal Secretary and others .. Respondents
..............
• Mr. S. B. Talekar, Advocate h/f Talekar and Associates for the petitioners.
• Mr. A. R. Kale, Additional G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
• Mr. S. D. Kotkar, Advocate h/f Mr. Tejas Kotkar for applicants in Civil
Application No.12385 of 2025.
.............
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 17 NOVEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 12 DECEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) :
-
. 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
wp-12208-2025.odt
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
wp-12208-2025.odt
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
wp-12208-2025.odt
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. The Deputy Charity Commissioner had then
called the record from the Trust and recorded the statement of the trustees.
Deputy Charity Commissioner verified the biometric attendance of the
employees, their appointments, receipts of online donations, receipts of
cash donations, resolutions passed by the Trust from time to time, audit
wp-12208-2025.odt
report etc. The fact finding report was submitted to Charity Commissioner
on 14.02.2024. In the meanwhile, Charity Commissioner had received
certain communications from Law and Judiciary Department on
02.01.2024 and 12.02.2024. The Government had sought additional
information. Thereafter, the Charity Commissioner directed Joint Charity
Commissioner, Pune to personally visit the Devasthan and make inquiry
by issuing communication dated 03.06.2024. Joint Charity Commissioner,
Pune then submitted report on 10.06.2024 to Charity Commissioner,
Mumbai. The said report was then forwarded to the Government. At the
same time, the Charity Commissioner initiated suo motu proceedings
under Section 41D of the Public Trust Act by passing an order below
Exhibit-01 in Suo Motu Miscellaneous Application No.20 of 2025. Those
proceedings are still pending. It appears that the Government decided to
supersede the elected board of trustees. Two notes were prepared by Law
and Judiciary Department, one for issuance of Notification for bringing
the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 into force and another Notification was for
constituting the Management Committee of Devasthan Trust. It appears
that the first note in respect of bringing the Act into force was approved,
however, it is learnt that the Legislation branch had reservation for
constituting Management Committee under Section 5 of the Shingnapur
Trust Act, 2018. It is therefore the information of the petitioners that it
wp-12208-2025.odt
was not possible to appoint the District Collector, Ahilyanagar as
Administrator without appointment of the Committee, however, the
Government went ahead with appointing Collector, Ahilyanagar as
Administrator by issuing Notification on the same day, thereby the
Government had decided to remove the Board of Trustees on the basis of
Calling Attention Motion moved by the Member of Legislative Assembly
Shri. Bawankule. In fact, in the report submitted by the Charity
Commissioner, no mismanagement has been found. The Government had
not taken any step for constituting the Management Committee under
Section 5 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018. All the actions have been
done with mala fide intention. Government wants to take over the temple
which has source of revenue generation. The Government is appointing
active politicians including the members of State Legislature as members
of the Managing Committee in Shree Saibaba Sansthan Trust, Shirdi. In
fact, the State of Maharashtra had enacted Shree Saibaba Sansthan Trust
(Shirdi) Act in 2004, however, this Court was required to supersede the
Management Committee appointed by the Government more than once.
Today, the Ad-hoc Committee constituted by this Court has taken charge
of the Shirdi Sansthan in view of the order dated 13.03.2012 passed in
Public Interest Litigation No.18 of 2011. This Court held that in absence
of rules and regulations framed for Shirdi Sansthan as per the Act no such
wp-12208-2025.odt
Committee can be constituted as appointed by the Government. Now, in
respect of Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan Trust also the rules and
regulations under Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 have not been formulated.
The Government has no power to appoint an Administrator under the Act.
It was not necessary for the petitioners to handover the charge to the
District Collector, Ahilyanagar, as his appointment is illegal.
7. During the pendency of the present petition, the Collector,
Ahilyanagar, who has been appointed as Administrator has further
appointed a Management Committee/Committee of Administrator vide
communication dated 30.09.2025. The petitioners have amended the
petition and challenged the said communication also. The Committee
consisting of 11 members has been appointed by Collector, Ahilyanagar
without any powers. As per Section 18 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018,
only the State Government alone can appoint the Chief Executive Officer
of the Temple Trust and, therefore, the petitioners are challenging the
Government Resolution dated 22.09.2025 issued by the Law and Judiciary
Department as well as the communication dated 30.09.2025 issued by
Collector, Ahilyanagar regarding appointment of Management
Committee/Committee of Administrators. The interim reliefs were then
asked/pleaded.
wp-12208-2025.odt
8. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Mr. Pankaj Ashiya,
Collector, Ahilyanagar on behalf of respondent No.2 as well as the
affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Mr. Atul Chormare, Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.1, Ahilyanagar and functioning as CEO, Shree
Shanaishwar Devasthan, Shingnapur, District Ahilyanagar on behalf of
respondent No.3. It has been stated by respondent No.2 that by resolution
dated 22.09.2025, the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 came into force, thereby
dissolving the erstwhile Trust and then appointed respondent No.2 as
Administrator for the purpose of ensuring continuity and proper
management of the Devasthan. He was appointed as Administrator and in
accordance with the said letter, he assumed the charge of the management
and administration on 27.09.2025. Panchanama to that effect was drawn in
presence of temple staff, local representatives and revenue officials. Now,
Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition No.1) has been appointed as Chief
Executive Officer to assist the Administrator and to look after the day-to-
day affairs of the Devasthan. The Chief Executive Officer has taken the
charge on 01.10.2025 and reported it to Collector, Ahilyanagar on
03.10.2025. It is then stated that the act of taking charge was completed
prior to the order passed by this Court on 04.10.2025. This Court had
given directions to maintain status quo and the petitioners themselves have
challenged the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing
wp-12208-2025.odt
Special Leave Petition. When the same relief was challenged before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said petition came to be dismissed, then
this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. All the activities at the temple
are running smoothly. Similar averments have been made in the affidavit
of Mr. Atul Chormare.
9. Learned Advocate Mr. S. B. Talekar holding for Talekar and
Associates for the petitioners has taken us through all the documents
annexed and he submits that the proceedings under Section 41D of the
Maharashtra Public Trust Act are still pending before the Charity
Commissioner, which was the suo motu act by him. He is mainly harping
upon the fact that as per Section 3 of Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018, it
requires a smooth transition of handing over charge or transfer. Section 3
of the Shingnapur Trust Act prescribes for Re-constitution of erstwhile
Trust and transfer to and vesting of properties of the Trust. Section 4 deals
with transfer of possession of valuables and properties to Trust. No such
actions have taken place in the present case. Further, Section 5 of the
Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 mandates that the State Government should
constitute Management Committee and then notify the same in the
Official Gazette. There is absolutely no provision in the Act to appoint
Collector as Administrator immediately coming into force of the Act.
wp-12208-2025.odt
Section 36 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 prescribes for appointment
of Administrator, but that power can be exercised by the State Government
when it is of the opinion that the Committee appointed under this Act is
not competent to perform or makes persistent default in performing the
duties imposed on it by or under this Act or any other law. Here, neither
the Committee was appointed, nor there was any duration for such
Committee to act upon and then State Government coming to a conclusion
that it is not competent to perform the acts and duties under the Act,
because on the same day both the notifications have been issued i.e. one in
respect of coming into force of the Act and second, directly the
appointment of the Collector. Thereafter, the Collector, in his capacity as
Administrator, has appointed another Committee. Section 5 of the
Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 does not provide any delegation or authority
or power to the Collector to make such appointment and now, it is stated
that such Committee has been appointed only to carry out the day-to-day
affairs. The entire record is with the petitioners and the charge has not
been taken. At any point of time, the elected body of the Trust was never
heard by the State Government and it can be seen that the entire act has
been done in haste and with mala fide intention. Learned Advocate
Mr. Talekar also submits that the Government has passed Shree Karveer
Niwasini Mahalaxmi (Ambabai) Mandir (Kolhapur) Act, 2018, which has
wp-12208-2025.odt
received assent of the Governor on 07.02.2019, yet as on today, the date of
this Act coming into force has not been declared and, therefore, the State
Government ought to have explained, as to what was the haste for it to
take such steps only in one day.
10. In his written legal submissions, learned Advocate Mr.
Talekar submits that there is no automatic cessation of the Committee
constituted under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act. Upon coming into
force of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018, Section 3 of the said Act begins
with non-obstante clause, but it contemplates that the erstwhile Trust shall
be replaced by the Committee and then the transfer to and vesting of
properties would take place after the Committee constituted under Section
5 of the Act comes into existence. He also submits that while interpreting
Section 36 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018, the doctrine of ejusdem
generis is required to be incorporated. Admittedly, the Committee as
contemplated under Section 5 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 is yet to
be constituted and, therefore, the appointment of Collector as
Administrator cannot be said to be under or by virtue of Section 36 of the
Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018.
11. Learned Advocate Mr. Talekar for the petitioners has relied
on many authorities, however, we are taking into consideration only few
wp-12208-2025.odt
of them. He relies on the decision in Raghunath Rai Bareja and another
Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, [(2007) 2 SCC 230], wherein it has
been held that the literal interpretation has to be followed even if it shall
cause hardships or inconvenience. Further, he relies on the decision in B.
Premanand Vs. Mohan Koikal, [(2011) 4 SCC 266], wherein it has been
held that where the words are unequivocal, there is no scope for importing
any rule of interpretation. On the point of inherent powers, he relies on
the decisions in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Solar Semiconductor
Power Co. (India) (P) Ltd., [(2017) 16 SCC 498 and Tarun K. Banerjee
Vs. State of W.B., [1977 SCC OnLine Cal 273]. Further, he relies on the
decision in P. H. Paul Manoj Pandian vs. P. Veldurai, [(2011) 5 SCC 214],
wherein it is held that once a law occupies the field, it is not open to the
State Government in exercise of its executive powers under Article 162 to
prescribe in the same field by way of executive instruction. Further, in A.
K. Roy vs. State of Punjab, [(1986) 4 SCC 326] it is held that unless the
authority is empowered to delegate the power, the same cannot be
delegated nor can be exercised by the authority subordinate to such
authority.
12. Learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent
Nos.1 to 3 after relying upon the affidavits of Collector, Ahilyanagar and
wp-12208-2025.odt
Mr. Atul Chormare, submits that the Government Resolution dated
22.09.2025 regarding appointment of Collector, Ahilyanagar as
Administrator has been issued under Section 36 of the Shingnapur Trust
Act, 2018 and further to be read along with Sections 44 and 48 of the
Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018. Section 44 specifically prescribes that the
Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 will have the overriding effect over the Public
Trust Act or any other law for the time being in force and Section 48
prescribes for the removal of difficulties. Now, after coming into force of
the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 from 22.09.2025, it would have been a
vacuum as to who would manage the affairs of the Trust, because after the
coming into force of the Act, in view of Section 44, the provisions of
Public Trust Act would not be in force or will not be applicable. Section
44 will have to be then read with Section 3 of the Shingnapur Trust Act,
2018 when Section 3 starts with non-obstante clause. It provides that
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Public Trusts Act or any other
law for the time being in force, on and from the appointed day, the
provisions of this Act shall apply in respect of erstwhile trust registered as
"Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan" at village Shinganapur, Taluka Nevasa,
District Ahmednagar, with registration No. A/587 and the said Trust shall
be re-constituted as provided in this Act." Now, the Collector has
appointed a Committee to assist him. The Collector has his own duties
wp-12208-2025.odt
being the Collector as well as District Magistrate and, therefore, it is not
possible for him to conduct the day-to-day affairs of the Trust. This has
been so stated in both those affidavits and then the Collector has taken
charge of the Trust before this Court had passed the order of status quo.
There is absolutely no necessity to interfere in this matter on the
constitutional side. The acts and irregularities committed by the petitioners
has led to the complaint. Even in the report that was filed it has been
reported that there was absolutely no necessity to employ huge number of
employees i.e. 2474. That means, the Trust has shown that it has
employed so many persons and it is the fact on record, however, when
physical verification was done, at that time, only 153 persons were
present. In his report, Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune region, Pune to
Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, it can be seen that Joint Charity
Commissioner has visited personally to each department. In the Hospital
Section, it was shown that 327 employees were working, when in fact
there was absolutely no indoor patient. The hospital is consisting of 15
beds. Similarly in Bhakt Niwas Department, in the building there were
only 109 rooms for which it was shown that they had employed 200
employees. Like this, the manipulation has been done. There was no
muster roll made available, however, biometric register was then made
available. Like this, there was mismanagement and, therefore, the
wp-12208-2025.odt
Government was forced to take the said decision, which cannot be now
doubted.
13. Taking into consideration the rival contentions it is not in
dispute that the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 had received the assent of
Hon'ble the Governor on 11.01.2019, however, as per Section 1 of the
said Act, it has to come into force on the date, as the State Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. Such Gazette
Notification appears to have been published on 22.09.2025 and on the
same day by Government Resolution, Administrator was appointed.
Collector, Ahilyanagar was made as an Administrator to look after the
affairs of the management of the Trust. It is interesting to note as to what
has been stated in the Government Resolution, which reads as under :-
"'kklu fu.kZ; %&
Jh 'kuS'oj nsoLFkku fo'oLrO;oLFkk ¼f'kax.kkiwj½ vf/kfu;e] 2018
e/khy dye 5 P;k midye ¼1½ vUo;s] "Jh 'kuS'oj nsoLFkku
fo'oO;oLFkk O;oLFkkiu lferh" ;k ukokus lacks/kyh tk.kkjh lferh xBhr
gksbZi;Zar] lnj nsoLFkku fo'oLrO;oLFkspk dkjHkkj lqjGhr] lqlw=]
ikjn'kZd vkf.k f'kLrcn~/k in~/krhus pkyfoyk tkok] rlsp nsoLFkkuP;k
nSuafnu O;ogkjkps O;oLFkkiu foukfo?u ikj ikMys tkos] ;kdfjrk
ftYgkf/kdkjh] vfgY;kuxj ;kaph "iz'kkld" Eg.kwu rkRiqjrh fu;qDrh
dj.;kr ;sr vkgs- R;kauh lnj nsoLFkku fo'oLrO;oLFksps laiw.kZ iz'kklu]
O;ogkj] foRrh; ckch] laiRrhps laj{k.k] rlsp HkDrkalkBhP;k loZ
lsok&lqfo/kk ;kaps O;oLFkkiu tckcnkjhiwoZd ikj ikMkos-
wp-12208-2025.odt
gh fu;qDrh oj uewn O;oLFkkiu lferh fof/kiwoZd xBhr gksbZi;Zar
fdaok 'kklukps iq<hy vkns'k ;sbZi;Zar] ;kiSdh ts vk/kh gksbZy rksi;Zar
ykxw jkghy- O;oLFkkiu lferh xBhr >kkY;kuarj] ;k iz'kkldkph
fu;qDrh vkiksvki lekIr gksbZy vkf.k R;kauh nsoLFkkupk dkjHkkj rkRdkG
lferhdMs lqiwnZ dj.ks vko';d jkghy-"
English translation of the aforesaid Government Resolution is
as under :-
"Government Resolution :-
Until the formation of a committee to be known as the "Shri
Shanaishwar Devasthan Vishwastha Vyavstha Vyavasthapan
Samiti" under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Shri Shanaishwar
Devasthan Trust (Shingnapur) Act, 2018, the District Collector
Ahilyanagar is being temporarily appointed as the 'Administrator'
for the smooth, orderly, transparent and disciplined management of
the said Devasthan Vishwastha Vyavstha and for the smooth
management of the day-to-day affairs of the Devasthan. He shall
responsibly manage the entire administration, business, financial
matters, protection of property and all service facilities for the
devotees of the said Devasthan Vishwastha Vyavstha.
This appointment shall remain in force until the above-
mentioned Vishwastha Samiti is duly constituted or until further
orders of the Government are issued, whichever is earlier. After the
Vishwastha Samiti (Committee) is constituted, the appointment of
this Administrator shall automatically be dissolved and he shall be
required to immediately hand over the administration of the
Devasthan to the Samiti (Committee)."
14. Thus, it can be seen that the Government itself is accepting
the fact that it has not appointed the Committee as contemplated under
wp-12208-2025.odt
Section 5(1) of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018. In order to appreciate the
submissions, we must consider the definitions and certain provisions of
the Act. Section 2(b) of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 defines
"Committee" or "Management Committee" means the Management
Committee constituted under section 5". Section 2(d) defines "Devasthan
Trust " means the Public Trust in respect of Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan,
Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar, as re-constituted under this Act."
Section 2(e) defines "erstwhile Trust" means the public Trust registered
under the Public Trusts Act, with registration No.A/587, referred to in sub-
section (1) of Section 3. Thus, taking into consideration these definitions,
then we will turn to Section 3 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018, which
provides for reconstitution of erstwhile Trust and transferred to and
vesting of properties, which reads thus :-
"3. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Public
Trusts Act or any other law for the time being in force, on
and from the appointed day, the provisions of this Act shall
apply in respect of erstwhile trust registered as "Shree
Shanaishwar Devasthan" at village Shinganapur, Taluka
Nevasa, District Ahmednagar, with registration No. A/587
and the said Trust shall be re-constituted as provided in this
Act.
(2) On the appointed day, all the properties, whether
wp-12208-2025.odt
movable or immovable (including all assets, rights, funds,
liabilities and obligations) of the erstwhile trust shall, by
virtue of, and in accordance with, the provisions of this Act,
stand transferred to, and vested in the Management
Committee for the purposes of the Devasthan Trust so re-
constituted under sub-section (1) and the Executive Officer
shall, on behalf of the Committee, be entitled to their
possession and management from that day.
(3) The Committee or Board of Trustees functioning
in relation to the erstwhile trust immediately before the
appointed day shall cease to function; and all its powers,
duties, rights and privileges, if any, in relation to the
erstwhile trust shall vest in the Management Committee of
the Devasthan Trust."
The said provision therefore makes it clear that on the
appointed day, notwithstanding anything contained in the Public Trust Act
or any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of Shingnapur
Trust Act, 2018 would apply in respect of erstwhile Trust and the said
Trust shall be reconstituted as provided under this Act. Together with
Section 3 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018, we must consider Section 5
of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018, which provides for constitution of
Management Committee for Devasthan Trust. It gives power to the State
Government to appoint Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Treasurer and not more
than eight members to constitute the Committee for the purpose of
wp-12208-2025.odt
Management of the Devasthan Trust, which is called "Shree Shanaishwar
Devasthan Trust Management Committee". Sub-section (3) of Section 5
of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 provides that the Committee shall be a
body corporate by the name given under the Act having perpetual
succession and a common seal. This Committee should be appointed by
the State. In fact, without constituting the Committee simultaneously as
contemplated under Section 5, the State Government ought not to have
fixed an appointed day. 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. This legal impediment ought to have been considered by the State
Government. There is in fact no issue as regards declaring the appointed
day or the day on which the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 to come into
force, but what was the hurry for the State Government to appoint the
Collector, Ahilyanagar as Administrator is a question. In other words, the
State's powers to appoint Administrator as a stop gap arrangement has
been challenged. No doubt, Section 3 especially sub-section (1) and sub-
section (3) of Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 would have the effect of seizure
of functions of the erstwhile Trust. Therefore, taking into consideration
provisions of Section 3, the State Government ought to have made the
wp-12208-2025.odt
appointment of the necessary members of the Committee including the
Chairman, Vice-Chairman etc. simultaneously with declaration of
appointed day, then only it ought to have taken the step to declare the
appointed day.
15. Section 36 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 makes a
provision for appointment of Administrator by the State Government,
however, if we consider sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the said Act, it
would show that such appointment of the Administrator can be undertaken
by the State Government if it is of the opinion that the Committee
appointed under this Act (means the Committee appointed under Section 5
of the Act) is not competent to perform or makes persistent default in
performing the duties imposed on it by or under this Act etc. Here, there
is no Committee, appointed under Section 5 of the Shingnapur Trust Act,
2018. Therefore, the order of appointment of Collector, Ahilyanagar as
Administrator on 22.09.2025 cannot be said to be under Section 36 of the
said Act. Now, the learned AGP submits that Section 36 of the
Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 cannot be read in isolation, but it will have to
be read with Section 44 and Section 48 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018.
Section 44 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 provides that the provisions
of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything contained in the
wp-12208-2025.odt
Public Trusts Act or any other law for the time being in force, or in any
scheme of management framed thereunder before the appointed day or in
any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal, Charity
Commissioner or other Competent Authority or in any custom, usage or
instrument. Thus, the Act has given overriding effect to other enactment
and then Section 48 of the Act provides for removal of difficulties. It
prescribes that if any difficulty arises in giving effect to any of the
provisions of this Act, the State Government may, as occasion arises, by
an order published in the Official Gazette, do anything not inconsistent
with the provisions of this Act, which appears to it to be necessary or
expedient for the purpose of removing the difficulty. We do not agree
with the said submission. Though Section 44 of the Shingnapur Trust Act,
2018 gives override effect, yet the fact remains is that there was no
question of difficulty, which could have arisen on the day when the
appointed day was to be declared. There is no affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent No.1 i.e. the State to explain as to how difficulty had arisen.
Even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that there was a difficulty,
then the State Government can pass such an order which is not
inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Here, the order that has been
passed in the Official Gazette regarding appointment of Collector,
Ahilyanagar as Administrator can be said to be inconsistent with the Act,
wp-12208-2025.odt
because there is no provision for making such appointment prior to the
constitution of the Management Committee. We would reiterate that only
Section 36 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 empowers the State
Government to make an appointment of Administrator, but that power can
be exercised only when the State Government comes to a conclusion that
the Management Committee, which is appointed under Section 5 of the
Act is not discharging its duties and there is persistent default in
performing the same as contemplated under the said Act.
15-A. Even applying the doctrine of purposive construction, the
outcome cannot be different. The purpose of the Act, as evident from its
preamble, is to ensure better administration by a statutorily-constituted
body. That purpose is advanced only when the mechanism contemplated
by the legislature is faithfully implemented. The executive cannot invoke
the purpose of the Act to justify a procedure that the Act itself does not
permit. As held in Reserve Bank of India vs. Peerless General Finance and
Investment Co. Ltd. and Ors, (1987) 1 SCC 424 the intention of the
legislature must prevail over administrative convenience. Hence, the
argument of administrative difficulty cannot enlarge or rewrite the
statutory framework. In Reserve Bank of India (Supra), it has been
observed that :-
wp-12208-2025.odt
"33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the
context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if
the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither
can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best
which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A
statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted.
With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole
and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase
and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its
enactment, with the glasses of the statute maker , provided by
such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and
words may take colour and appear different than when the statute
is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With
these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover
what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is
meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire
Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be
construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every
word has a place and everything is in its place. It is by looking at
the definition as a whole in the setting of the entire Act and by
reference to what preceded the enactment and the reasons for it
that the Court construed the expression 'Prize Chit' in Srinivasa
and we find no reason to depart from the Court's construction."
16. We agree to the submissions on behalf of the petitioner that
there is no automatic cessation of the Committee constituted under the
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, unless there is constitution of the
Committee as contemplated under Section 5 of the Shingnapur Trust Act,
wp-12208-2025.odt
2018. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018
prescribes that on the appointed day, the property of erstwhile Trust would
stand transferred to and vested in the Management Committee and Section
4 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 prescribes for transfer of possession
of valuables and properties to the Trust. It gives directions to the Board of
Trustees of the erstwhile Trust that it should handover the movable or
immovable property of the erstwhile Trust etc. forthwith or within such
longer period not exceeding thirty days as may be allowed by the
Management Committee along with full inventory thereof to Executive
Officer on behalf of the Management Committee. Here, there is no
appointment of the Management committee, nor Executive Officer was
appointed. Under such circumstance, it cannot be stated that everything
was automatic after the appointment day was notified.
16-A. It must also be noted that the erstwhile Trust holds
immovable and movable properties, donations and funds, all of which
constitute 'property' within the meaning of Article 300A of the
Constitution. Any divestment or compulsory transfer of such property can
only be 'by authority of law'. The appointment of an Administrator,
without statutory sanction and contrary to the scheme of Sections 3, 4 and
5 of the Act, results in a deprivation of control over property without
wp-12208-2025.odt
lawful authority. The Supreme Court has consistently held, including in
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, [(1995) Supp (1) SCC 596]
that executive instructions cannot constitute 'law' for the purpose of
Article 300A. The Government Resolution dated 22.09.2025 therefore
lacks constitutional legitimacy insofar as it seeks to displace the elected
trustees and assume custody of Trust assets.
17. Now, as regards the reason, as has been stated by the State
Government, as to why they rushed for declaration of appointed day and
the reports of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Joint Charity
Commissioner and the action taken by the Charity Commissioner is
concerned, we do not want to express our opinion in view of the fact that
the action taken under Section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act
by the learned Charity Commissioner is still pending before him. Learned
Additional Government Pleader made a statement that those proceedings
would go on and even after the appointed day coming into force, those
proceedings will not get extinguished automatically. Suffice it to say for
us that even if there was any such mismanagement committed by the
erstwhile Trust and if it was the fact which prompted the State
Government to declare the appointed day, yet it ought to have given effect
to the entire provisions of the Act. The State Government was not
wp-12208-2025.odt
expected to take action only under some provisions of the Act and would
act even beyond the provisions to exercise the control over the Trust.
Definitely, the purpose for which Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 has been
brought into force, as stated in the preamble, is to reconstitute a Public
Trust registered under the name Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan at
Shingnapur, District Ahilyanagar under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act
and to provide for better administration of Shree Shanaishwar Temple and
control of the State Government on the Trust and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto. Even in the preamble it is stated that
complaints were received by the State Government regarding irregular
management of the previous Board of Management which prompted it to
have the separate law. The law was enacted in 2018, but for the reasons
best known to the State Government, it was kept dormant and all of a
sudden then the appointed day was declared without any preparation as
contemplated under the Act and then it is stated that as a stop gap
arrangement to look after the management of the Trust, the Collector,
Ahilyanagar has been appointed as Administrator.
18. We are aware that the State Government has a power to bring
into force a law, however, when such Act is brought into force, then the
State Government, who has to give effect to all the provisions under the
wp-12208-2025.odt
Act, cannot travel beyond the same. The State Government, as per the
Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018, has power to appoint those persons in the
Management Committee i.e. Chairman, Vice-Charmin, Secretary and
members, of whose number shall not exceed nine, as per its choice but for
that purpose, there shall be rules, their qualifications should be prescribed.
Though qualification for being member has been prescribed under Section
8 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018, qualification of the Chairman has not
been provided. Their allowances/honorarium are to be fixed as
contemplated under Section 6 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018. Section
46 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 prescribes that the State Government
by Notification in the Official Gazette may make rules to carry out the
purposes of the Act. Section 47 of the Act gives power to the Committee
to make regulations not inconsistent with the Act. No such procedure has
been adhered to and directly without there being any power under the
Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018, the Collector, Ahilyanagar appears to have
been appointed as Administrator.
19. We would place reliance on the observations of the
Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in Sachin Gopal Bhanage Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and others, [Public Interest Litigation No.102 of
2016 with companion matters decided on 29.11.2017], wherein after
wp-12208-2025.odt
taking note of the decision in Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh and Ors., [AIR 1961 SC 564], it has been observed "when
such is the principle laid down by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, then it goes without saying that the mandate of Article 14
of the Constitution of India has to be fulfilled and every state of action has
to be informed by reason and ought to be fair, transparent and non-
discriminatory." Note has also been taken of the decision in State of
Punjab and another Vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal and another, [2016 (6)
SCC 1], wherein after following Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh [ AIR 1991 537] the propositions were summed up. Here,
we are giving only relevant propositions taking into consideration the fact
that they relate to the law, which reads as under :-
"41. To sum up, the following propositions are legally
unexceptionable:
41.1. The Government and so also all public bodies are
trustees of the power vested in them.
41.2. Discharge of the trust reposed in them in the best
possible manner is their primary duty.
41.3. The power to engage, employ or recruit servants,
agents, advisors and representatives must like any other power
be exercised in a fair, reasonable, non- discriminatory and
objective manner.
41.4. The duty to act in a fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory
wp-12208-2025.odt
and objective manner is a facet of the Rule of Law in a
constitutional democracy like ours.
41.5. An action that is arbitrary has no place in a polity governed
by Rule of Law apart from being offensive to the equality clause
guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India
41.6............................................................
41.7............................................................
41.8............................................................
41.9 ...........................................................
41.10. ...................................................
41.11. Appointments made in an arbitrary fashion, without any
transparent method of selection or for political considerations
will be amenable to judicial review and liable to be quashed.
41.12. Judicial review of any such appointments will, however,
be limited to examining whether the process is affected by any
illegality, irregularity or perversity/irrationality. The Court
exercising the power of judicial review will not sit in appeal to
reassess the merit of the candidates, so long as the method of
appointment adopted by the competent authority does not suffer
from any infirmity."
Therefore, we are of the view that power of judicial review can be
exercised in the present case also.
19-A. Apart from the statutory inconsistencies noted hereinabove,
the action of the State Government also falls foul of the constitutional
wp-12208-2025.odt
guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As held in E.P.
Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 and reiterated in
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, 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 exercise of power is thus vulnerable
on the touchstone of Article 14, being arbitrary, unguided and inconsistent
with the rule of law.
19-B. 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 Supreme
Court in State of Bihar v. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh, (2006) 2
SCC 545 and in DDA v. Joint Action Committee, (2008) 2 SCC 672 has
emphasized that the executive cannot exercise a power that the statute
wp-12208-2025.odt
does not confer. The appointment of the Collector as Administrator,
without the existence of a Committee whose failure could trigger Section
36, amounts to executive legislation - an exercise clearly impermissible
within our constitutional framework.
20. Learned Advocate Mr. Talekar has rightly relied on the
decisions in Raghunath Rai (Supra) and B. Premanand (Supra), wherein it
has been held that when there is no ambiguity and the words of the statute
are absolutely clear, then there is no scope for importing any other rule or
it can be the reason for exercise of inherent powers by the State. In every
matter, the State has no unequivocal power to interfere. Even for its
interference, the enactment should provide for such interference, which is
absent in the present Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018. The ratio laid down in
Marathwada University Vs. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan, [(1989) 3 SCC
132] is squarely applicable here, which prescribes that when the Act
prescribes a particular body to exercise a power, it must be exercised only
by that body. It cannot be exercised by others unless it is delegated and
the law also provide for such delegation. Similar is the ratio in Coordinate
Bench decision in Eknath Bayaji Gadkari Vs. Union of India, [2009 SCC
OnLine Bom.1642] and S. Kuldeep Singh Vs. S. Prithpal Singh, [(2023)
19 SCC 609].
wp-12208-2025.odt
21. 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. As per the affidavit of Mr. Pankaj Ashiya, the Collector,
Ahilyanagar/Administrator of the Devasthan, he has taken the charge of
the Trust on 27.09.2025. Now, he is relying on the letter given by the
office Superintendent of erstwhile Trust to him, which is produced at
Exhibit-"R-1". Important point to be noted is that Section 3 of the
Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 contemplates that Board of Trustees should
handover all the properties whether movable or immovable and Section 4
of the said Act as aforesaid regulates it. Even time till thirty days can be
given by the Management Committee for such handing over and there
shall be inventory for the same. Now, it appears that some panchanama
has been drawn regarding sealing the office, proceeding record room,
account department etc. between 12.30 p.m. to 1.50 p.m. on 27.01.2025.
Here, the said panchanama does not bear the signature of Mr. Pankaj
Ashiya, Collector, Ahilyanagar and immediately on 30.09.2025, the
Collector, without any authority, has appointed the Committee and he has
wp-12208-2025.odt
not quoted any reason or power given to him by the State Government to
appoint such a Committee. Therefore, the order issued by respondent
No.2, Collector/Administrator on 30.09.2025 will have to be held to be
illegal. Even Section 36 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018 does not
empower Administrator to appoint a Committee to assist him. Now, Mr.
Atul Chormare, who has been designated as Chief Executive Officer in the
Committee appointed by respondent No.2 has filed his affidavit on behalf
of respondent No.3. No doubt, the Committee members have also been
made as respondents. He then states that after he and the Committee was
appointed, the panchanama was drawn and the charge was taken even
before this Court passed the order on 04.10.2025 of maintaining status quo
as on today. It will not be out of place to mention here that the matter was
taken up on 04.10.2025 by this Court and after considering the
submissions on behalf of both the sides, we have observed that "Now, it is
a disputed question of fact as to whether the charge has been taken or not.
It can be considered at a later point of time when the matter would be
heard taking into consideration the questions about the legality of the
action of the State has been raised and, therefore, we direct maintaining
status quo as on today." Now, we are coming at a conclusion that the
action taken by the State Government of appointing the Collector,
Ahilyanagar as Administrator by Government Resolution dated
wp-12208-2025.odt
22.09.2025 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.
22. We reiterate 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.
22-A. 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
wp-12208-2025.odt
statutory mandate is operationalised in its entirety. We, therefore, proceed
to pass the following order :-
ORDER
I) The Writ Petition is hereby partly allowed.
II) The Government Resolution dated 22.09.2025, issued by the
Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, appointing
the Collector, Ahilyanagar as Administrator on Shree Shanaishwar
Devasthan Trust at Shingnapur, Ahilyanagar, stands quashed and set
aside.
III) The communication dated 30.09.2025 issued by the
Collector, Ahilyanagar in the capacity as Administrator of Shree
Shanaishwar Devasthan Trust at Shingnapur, District Ahilyanagar,
stands quashed and set aside.
IV) Status quo ante be maintained. The Collector, Ahilyanagar
and/or the Committee appointed by him by communication dated
30.09.2025 to handover the movable and immovable properties of
the Trust to the erstwhile Trust within a period of seven (07) days
from today.
V) The State Government is at liberty to take steps as
contemplated under the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018, after framing
rules.
wp-12208-2025.odt
VI) Till the appropriate steps are taken by State Government
under the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018, the erstwhile Trust should
operate the Bank Account.
VII) Civil Application No.12131 of 2025 and Civil Application
No.12385 of 2025 stand disposed of.
VIII) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
LATER ON :-
. Learned AGP, after the pronouncement of the order, requests that
the status quo as on today be maintained for about eight weeks.
2. Here, it is to be noted that when we had granted status quo by order
dated 04.10.2025, it was mentioned 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 later point of time when the matter would be heard
taking into consideration the question about the legality about the action
of the State Government. Now, after considering the submissions from
both sides, we have come to the conclusion that the appointment of
Collector as Administrator by the State Government is illegal and the so
wp-12208-2025.odt
called taking of charge from the Executive Superintendent of the Trust and
not by the trustees of the erstwhile trust by way of panchanama is also
illegal. In that situation, we cannot allow the illegality to go on and,
therefore, the request on behalf of the State Government stands rejected.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
scm
