Bombay High Court Quashes Maha Govt Order Appointing Administrator To Look After Management Of Shani Shingnapur Temple

The Bombay High Court bench at Aurangabad on Friday quashed and set aside the order of the Maharashtra Government by which it appointed an Administrator to look after the management of the Shani Shingnapur Temple in Ahmednagar (now changed to Ahilyanagar) and removing the erstwhile Management Committee elected under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten Venegavkar further quashed the Committee constituted by the Administrator and ordered the hand over of the functioning of the temple to the erstwhile Managing Committee. Notably, the Maharashtra Government notified the enforcement of the Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan Trust (Shingnapur) Act, 2018 by a Government Resolution (GR) on September 22, 2025 despite the fact that the said Act had received assent of the Governor on August 9, 2018 and was subsequently published in the Official Gazette on August 13, 2018. According to the petitioners, members of the erstwhile Committee, the State by the September 22, 2025 GR not only superseded the previous Committee but also appointed the Collector of Ahilyanagar as the Administrator, despite reservations from the State's Law and Justice Department. The petitioners highlighted that all the action initiated in 2023 after Chandrashekhar Bawankule, a BJP MLA raised doubts about the functioning of the Shani Temple in the State Assembly. It was argued that pursuant to Bawankule's query in the house, reports were filed by the Charity Commissioner indicating no wrong yet the State government in a hurry, cut short the tenure of the Managing Committee, which was slated to end on December 31, 2025.The judges considered the provisions of the Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan Trust (Shingnapur) Act, 2018 and found that section 5 prescribed for appointing a Managing Committee, whereas section 36 provided for appointing an Administrator, that too in certain circumstances. "In fact, without constituting the Committee simultaneously as contemplated under Section 5, the State Government ought not to have fixed an appointed day (day of enforcement of the 2018 Act). 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," the judges said in the order. This legal impediment ought to have been considered by the State Government, the judges said, adding, "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."The bench noted that sub-section (1) of Section 36 provides that the 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 September 22, 2025 cannot be said to be under Section 36 of the said Act. 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," the judges held. The bench further pointed that even if the 'doctrine of purposive construction' is applied to the facts of the present case, 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," the judges underlined. The bench made it clear 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, 2018. It noted that the provisions of the Act of 2018 provide 30 days time for the erstwhile Committee to hand over the movable and immovable properties to the new Committee constituted under section 5 of the Act. "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...

Bombay High Court Quashes Maha Govt Order Appointing Administrator To Look After Management Of Shani Shingnapur Temple

Narsi Benwal

Tags