The Bombay high court has quashed a communication that halted the selection of five trustees for the Shree Saptashrung Nivasini Devi Trust in Nashik, holding that it was issued without legal authority or the required administrative approval.
A division bench of justices GS Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale, in its October 29 judgment, also set aside a consequential order by the principal district and sessions judge, Nashik, withdrawing the list of recommended trustees from official websites.
The court made strong observations against Anju Shende, who was special officer to the then chief justice when she sent the communication on March 14. Shende, now serving as a district judge in Pune, said in an affidavit that she had acted on the then chief justice’s directions. The bench rejected this explanation, observing that it was not supported by the registry’s records.
“We find that the Special Officer to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice/respondent no. 4, in issuing the impugned communication, acted with gross impropriety and contrary to law,” the judgment said.
Allowing the petition without costs, the court quashed the March 14 communication and the consequential order withdrawing the list of recommended trustees.
{{/usCountry}}Allowing the petition without costs, the court quashed the March 14 communication and the consequential order withdrawing the list of recommended trustees.
{{/usCountry}}The dispute arose from the selection process for five trustee positions at the religious trust at Saptashrung Gad. According to the petitioners, around 625 applications were received after a public advertisement was issued in September 2025. Following scrutiny and interviews, five candidates were recommended on March 12, 2026.
Senior advocate AY Sakhare, appearing for the petitioners, argued that neither the trust’s governing scheme nor the law required the district judge to consult the High Court before selecting trustees. He submitted that the special officer had no jurisdiction to issue such a direction.
A key issue was the commencement of an amendment transferring certain powers concerning public trusts from district judges to the charity commissioner. An affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court stated that Section 50B, the relevant provision, had not come into force when the selection process concluded on March 12.
The provision came into force on May 1, 2026, and charge of the trust was handed over to the charity commissioner on June 2, the affidavit stated. It defended the March communication as a response to uncertainty over which authority was competent to conduct the selection.
Shende maintained in her affidavit that the communication had been drafted and sent on the then chief justice’s directions and that she had acted in the discharge of her official duties. Her counsel, senior advocate Sharan Jagtiani, told the court that she would not defend the decision but maintained that it had not been taken unilaterally.