7 months ago
1
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court connected Friday (December 12, 2025) struck down the Maharashtra government’s determination to name the Ahilyanagar Collector arsenic head of the Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan Trust at Shingnapur, terming the enactment “illegal” and beyond the scope of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018.
Delivering the judgment, a Division Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar observed, “We have concluded that the assignment of Collector arsenic Administrator by the State Government is illegal. The acts done by the Administrator and the Committee constituted by him without immoderate authorization are amerciable and, therefore, presumption quo ante is required to be granted.”
The Bench quashed the Government Resolution dated September 22, 2025, which brought the Act into unit and simultaneously appointed the Collector arsenic Administrator, and also set speech the Collector’s connection dated September 30, constituting a committee. The tribunal directed the Collector and the committee to manus implicit each movable and immovable properties of the Trust to the erstwhile trustees wrong 7 days and allowed the Trust to operate its slope relationship until the State frames rules and constitutes a Management Committee nether the Act.
The petition was filed by Bhagwat Sopan Bankar and 10 different elected trustees, represented by elder advocator S.B. Talekar. They argued that they were elected successful December 2020 for a five-year word ending December 31, 2025, and that the authorities acted “with mala fide intention” to instrumentality power of the temple, a large gross source.
Mr. Talekar contended, “There is perfectly nary proviso successful the Act to name Collector arsenic Administrator immediately coming into unit of the Act. Section 36 empowers assignment of Administrator lone erstwhile the Committee appointed nether Section 5 is not competent to execute its duties.”
He further submitted, “There is nary automatic cessation of the Committee constituted nether the Maharashtra Public Trust Act unless determination is constitution of the Committee arsenic contemplated nether Section 5 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018.”
Additional Government Pleader A.R. Kale, appearing for the State, defended the determination citing Sections 36, 44 and 48 of the Act. He argued, “After coming into unit of the Act, successful presumption of Section 44, the provisions of Public Trust Act would not beryllium applicable… The Collector was appointed to guarantee continuity and due management.”
Mr. Kale besides referred to alleged mismanagement, “The Trust showed employment of 2,474 persons, but carnal verification recovered lone 153 present. In the infirmary section, 327 employees were shown though determination was nary indoor diligent and lone 15 beds.”
Rejecting the State’s justification, the Bench held, “There is perfectly nary proviso nether the Act which empowers the State to marque a halt spread statement by making an assignment arsenic Administrator… Section 36 empowers assignment lone erstwhile the Management Committee appointed nether Section 5 is not discharging its duties.”
The judges noted that the authorities acted “in haste” and its bid was “inconsistent with the Act”.
“Even if for the involvement of arguments, it is accepted that determination was a difficulty, past the State Government tin walk specified an bid which is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Here, the order… tin beryllium said to beryllium inconsistent.”
On law principles, the tribunal said, “Arbitrariness is the precise antithesis of equality. The declaration of the appointed time and the simultaneous assignment of an Administrator, without adherence to the statutory pre-conditions, is neither transparent nor rational.”
On spot rights, the Bench observed, “Any divestment oregon compulsory transportation of specified spot tin lone beryllium ‘by authorization of law’. The Government Resolution dated 22.09.2025 truthful lacks law legitimacy insofar as it seeks to displace the elected trustees and presume custody of Trust assets.”
The judges added, “We expect the State Government to implicit the rule-making process with owed expedition truthful that the statutory mandate is operationalised in its entirety.”
“The Government Resolution dated 22.09.2025 appointing the Collector, Ahilyanagar as Administrator, stands quashed and acceptable aside. The connection dated 30.09.2025 issued by the Collector stands quashed and acceptable aside. Status quo ante be maintained. The Collector and/or the Committee appointed by him to handover the movable and immovable properties of the Trust to the erstwhile Trust wrong a play of 7 (07) days from today,” the bid read.
The tribunal rejected the State’s plea to maintain status quo for 8 weeks, stating, “We cannot let the illegality to spell connected and, therefore, the petition connected behalf of the State Government stands rejected.”
