Click the Play button to listen to article

The Bombay High Court has quashed a communication issued by a Special Officer in the name of the then Chief Justice, directing the withdrawal and suspension of a list of recommended trustees of a Nashik temple trust, holding that the officer had acted with gross impropriety and contrary to law. The Court observed that the Special Officer had misused the name of the Chief Justice and that the conduct possibly amounted to serious misconduct.

A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale was hearing a petition filed challenging the communication dated 14 March, 2026 issued by respondent no. 4, who was, at the relevant time, the Special Officer to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. The challenge was brought by five candidates who were selected in the process for the appointment of trustees of the Shree Saptashrung Nivasini Devi Trust, Saptashrung Gad, Nashik.

The impugned communication stipulated that the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court had directed that the list of recommended Trustees of the Trust, dated 12 March, 2026, published by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, be withdrawn from the website and kept on hold until further directions. Hence, the present challenge was raised by five recommended candidates.

The petitioners submitted that the impugned communication issued by the Special Officer to the Hon'ble Chief Justice/respondent no. 4 is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. It was contended that no jurisdiction is conferred on the Hon'ble Chief Justice to take any such decision under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.

The Court noted that the Special Officer's affidavit attributed the communication entirely to oral directions from the then Chief Justice. However, the respondents' counsel admitted, on instructions, that no office submission had been placed before the Chief Justice and no approval had been obtained before the communication was issued.

“… the impugned communication as asserted on behalf of the petitioners, appeared to have been issued, for reasons which cannot be justified in law, as also without following the administrative procedure,” the Court remarked.

The Court found no justification in the affidavits for issuing the communication in the Chief Justice's name. It refused to accept the Special Officer's explanation that she had merely acted on the Chief Justice's directions, observing that the communication could not legally be regarded as a decision of the Chief Justice.

“We refuse to believe that the directions contained in the impugned communication can, in law, be regarded to be a decision of the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice… it is a clear case where the Special Officer to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice/respondent no. 4 has misused the name of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court...,” the Court remarked.

The Court emphasized that granting any acceptance to the impugned communication without any prior approval from the Hon'ble Chief Justice would amount to condoning the actions of a responsible officer of the registry, who held a position of high confidence, observing:

“If we are to accord any sanctity to the impugned communication… we would be condoning such actions of a member… who was holding a position of high confidence in the office of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, in usurping the solemnity of the high office. Such conduct, in our opinion, apart from being gross also possibly amounts to a serious misconduct on the part of respondent no. 4 in issuing the impugned communication.”

The Court held the conduct on the part of the respondent concerned to be a matter of serious concern. Highlighting the boundaries of the position that the respondent held, the Court observed:

“Merely working with the Secretariat of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice would not mean that there is licence to indulge in issuance of such illegal communication and which even the Hon'ble the Chief Justice would otherwise not issue on the administrative side.”

Accordingly, the Court quashed the communication dated March 14, 2026, issued by the Special Officer, as well as the consequential order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nashik, staying the selection process.

Case Title: Vishnu Trimbak Warungase v. State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No. 5068 of 2026]

Full View
Tags: