Bombay HC quashes State’s appointment of collector as administrator of Shani Shingnapur Temple Trust

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on Friday (December 12, 2025) struck down the Maharashtra government’s decision to appoint the Ahilyanagar Collector as administrator of the Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan Trust at Shingnapur, terming the action “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 appointment of Collector as Administrator by the State Government is illegal. 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.” 

The Bench quashed the Government Resolution dated September 22, 2025, which brought the Act into force and simultaneously appointed the Collector as Administrator, and also set aside the Collector’s communication dated September 30, constituting a committee. The court directed the Collector and the committee to hand over all movable and immovable properties of the Trust to the erstwhile trustees within seven days and allowed the Trust to operate its bank account until the State frames rules and constitutes a Management Committee under the Act.

The petition was filed by Bhagwat Sopan Bankar and ten other elected trustees, represented by senior advocate S.B. Talekar. They argued that they were elected in December 2020 for a five-year term ending December 31, 2025, and that the government acted “with mala fide intention” to take control of the temple, a major revenue source. 

Mr. Talekar contended, “There is absolutely no provision in the Act to appoint Collector as Administrator immediately coming into force of the Act. Section 36 empowers appointment of Administrator only when the Committee appointed under Section 5 is not competent to perform its duties.” 

He further submitted, “There is no automatic cessation of the Committee constituted under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act unless there is constitution of the Committee as contemplated under Section 5 of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018.” 

Additional Government Pleader A.R. Kale, appearing for the State, defended the move citing Sections 36, 44 and 48 of the Act. He argued, “After coming into force of the Act, in view of Section 44, the provisions of Public Trust Act would not be applicable… The Collector was appointed to ensure continuity and proper management.” 

Mr. Kale also referred to alleged mismanagement, “The Trust showed employment of 2,474 persons, but physical verification found only 153 present. In the hospital section, 327 employees were shown though there was no indoor patient and only 15 beds.” 

Rejecting the State’s justification, the Bench held, “There is absolutely no provision under the Act which empowers the State to make a stop gap arrangement by making an appointment as Administrator… Section 36 empowers appointment only when the Management Committee appointed under Section 5 is not discharging its duties.” 

The judges noted that the government acted “in haste” and its order was “inconsistent with the Act”. 

“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… can be said to be inconsistent.” 

On constitutional principles, the court said, “Arbitrariness is the very antithesis of equality. 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.” 

On property rights, the Bench observed, “Any divestment or compulsory transfer of such property can only be ‘by authority of law’. 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.” 

The judges added, “We expect the State Government to complete the rule-making process with due expedition so 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 set aside. The communication dated 30.09.2025 issued by the Collector stands quashed and set 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 within a period of seven (07) days from today,” the order read. 

The court rejected the State’s plea to maintain status quo for eight weeks, stating, “We cannot allow the illegality to go on and, therefore, the request on behalf of the State Government stands rejected.”