Allowed

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 May 2013PIL/33/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of PILs challenging the appointment of committee members for Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust. The court held that the petition's purpose was achieved upon publication of Rules, barred validity challenges within this proceeding, and permitted the State to constitute a fresh committee.

What did the court decide?

Permitting the State to constitute a new managing committee for a period of two weeks, after which the ad-hoc committee ceases to operate.

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale and Anr. Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 PIL27, 33/12 & CAs

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 27 OF 2012

¶5

Shailesh s/o Sundarrao DethePetitioner

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

Respondents

¶9

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 33 OF 2012

¶10

Sanjay s/o Bhaskar Kale & Anr.
V E R S U S

¶11

Petitioners

¶12

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶13

Respondents

¶14

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4351 OF 2012 IN P.I.L. NO. 27 OF 2012

¶15

Iliyas s/o Ahmed Shaikh & Ors.

¶16

Applicants

¶17

V E R S U S

¶18

Shailesh s/o Sundarrao Dethe & Ors.

¶19

Respondents

¶20

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5751 OF 2013 IN P.I.L. NO. 27 OF 2012

¶21

Pravin s/o Ramchandra Pote Patil

¶22

Applicants

¶23

V E R S U S

¶24

Shailesh s/o Sundarrao Dethe & Ors.

¶25

Respondents

PIL27, 33/12 & CAs

W I T H

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5752 OF 2013 IN P.I.L. NO. 27 OF 2012

¶30

Shailesh s/o Sundarrao Dethe

¶31

Applicants

¶32

V E R S U S

¶33

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶34

Respondents

¶35

W I T H

¶36

CIVIL APPLICATION [STAMP] NO. 13740 OF 2013 IN P.I.L. NO. 33 OF 2012

¶37

Shailesh s/o Sundarrao Dethe

¶38

Applicants

¶39

V E R S U S

¶40

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶41

Respondents

¶42

Shri P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel, instructed by

¶43

Shri S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the petitioner in Public

¶44

Interest Litigation No. 27 of 2012

¶45

and Civil Application No. 5752 of 2013

¶46

Shri S.B. Talekar, Advocate for the petitioners in Public

¶47

Interest Litigation No. 33 of 2013 and

¶48

Civil Application [Stamp] No. 13740 of 2013

¶49

Shri S.V. Kurundkar, Govt. Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 & 2

¶50

Shri R.N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel and

¶51

Shri V.R. Dhorde, Adv. With Shri S.R. Choukidar, Advocate for respondent No.3

¶52

Shri V.A. Thorat, Senior Counsel, instructed by

¶53

Shri R.A. Tamble, Adv. for respondent Nos. 4,9,10 and 11

¶54

Shri S.S. Deshmukh, Adv. for respondent Nos.5 & 14

¶55

Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent No.6

¶56

Shri A.S. Sawant, Adv. for respondent No.12

¶57

Shri V.D. Salunke, Adv. for respondent No. 13

¶58

Shri A.C. Darandale, Adv. for respondent Nos. 15, 16 and 17

¶59

Shri M.A. Jahagirdar, Adv. For applicants in Civil Application No. 4351 of 2012

¶60

Shri P.R. Patil, Advocate for the applicant in
Civil Application No. 5751 of 2013

¶61

3 PIL27, 33/12 & CAs

¶62

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL &
 A. V. NIRGUDE, JJ.
 DATE : 2ND MAY, 2013

¶63

PER COURT : [Per NARESH H. PATIL,J.]

¶64

1.Heard.

¶65

2.By an order dated 30th March, 2012, this Court

¶66

had appointed ad-hoc committee comprising of the
Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar, the Collector
Ahmednagar and the Chief Executive Officer of Shri Sai

¶67

Baba Sansthan Trust, Shirdi, District Ahmednagar to
manage the affairs of Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust.
Since then the said committee headed by the learned
Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar is functioning.

¶68

3.By subsequent orders passed in various

¶69

applications, restriction was put by this Court on the
ad-hoc committee in respect of adopting resolutions
concerning major financial decision to be taken by the
said committee. The ad-hoc committee was directed to

¶70

seek permission of this Court in respect of major
financial decisions to be taken while governing and

¶71

4 PIL27, 33/12 & CAs

¶72

managing the affairs of the Trust. At various stages,
the committee moved this Court seeking permission for
implementing its decision and time to time this Court
considered such applications and passed orders.

¶73

4.The Public Interest Litigation No. 27 of 2012
was filed on 26th March, 2012, with following two
substantial prayers :

¶74

“B]Issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the
nature of mandamus to respondent Nos. 1 and 2
to forthwith frame Rules for making
appointments of the managing committee
members of the Shree Sai Baba Sansthan
Shirdi, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar, as
directed by this Hon’ble Court vide order
dated 30.4.2010 in civil application No. 2196
of 2009 in writ petition No. 4640 of 2007.

¶75

C]

¶76

Issue a writ of prohibition or writ in the
nature of prohibition to the respondent Nos.
1 and 2 from making appointments of the Board
of Trustees of Shree Saibaba Sansthan Trust,
Shirdi, Tq. Rahata District Ahmednagar
without framing Rules and laying down the

¶77

5 PIL27, 33/12 & CAs

¶78

eligibility and qualification for the members
to be appointed as managing committee members
of the said Trust.”

¶79

By way of addition of prayer clause 10-CC was

¶80

allowed to be incorporated in the prayer clause.

¶81

“10-CC]Issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the
nature of certiorari to quash and set aside
the notification/order dated 27.3.2012 passed
by the State Government appointing the
respondent Nos. 4 to 17 as the committee
members of Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Shirdi, Tq.
Rahata, District Ahmednagar.”

¶82

The consequent interim reliefs were also
prayed.

¶83

5.The committee nominated by the State

¶84

Government in exercise of provisions of Section 25 of

¶85

the Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) Act, 2004

¶86

[for short, “the Act of 2004”] was in existence for
near about eight years. The said committee was
injuncted by this Court by an order dated 30th March,

¶87

6 PIL27, 33/12 & CAs

¶88

2012 from functioning, officiating and/or acting as
members of Shri Saibaba Sansthan Managing Committee.
It is a matter of record that the order passed by this
Court on 30th March, 2012, in the proceedings of writ
petition No. 4640 of 2007 directing the Government to
frame rules was not complied with.

¶89

6.The substantial prayer in the Public Interest
Litigation No. 27 of 2012 was for seeking direction to
the respondents to forthwith frame rules for making
appointment of the managing committee.

¶90

7.On 27th September, 2012, the learned Advocate

¶91

General of the State Shri D.J. Khambata made a

¶92

statements that the rules under the provisions of

¶93

Section 25 of the Act, 2004 are being drafted. As

¶94

request was made to adjourn the petition, the petition

¶95

was adjourned to be heard after 6 to 8 weeks, as the
State was in the process of drafting the rules under

¶96

the Act. On 22nd November, 2012, the learned
Government Pleader, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad,

¶97

PIL27, 33/12 & CAs

¶98

on instructions, stated that the draft rules are
prepared and they are pending with the State
authorities. An adjournment was sought on that ground
to 14th January, 2013. The matter was thereafter heard
on 21st March, 2013 and 17th April, 2013. Paragraph No.
6 of the order passed on 17th April, 2013, reads as
under :-

¶99

“6.Shri Kurundkar, learned Government
Plader seeks two weeks time to take
instructions from the State in respect of the
issues raised by the learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties,
including following issue:-

¶100

“Whether the State would contemplate
constituting fresh committee after framing of
the said rules.”

¶101

8.The petitioners in Public Interest Litigation
Nos. 27 of 2012 moved Civil Application No. 5752 of
2013 seeking amendment to the petition raising
challenge to the provisions of Shri Saibaba Sansthan
(Shirdi) (Appointment of Member of Managing Committee

¶102

8 PIL27, 33/12 & CAs

¶103

and Forums of Declaration) Rules 2013 (hereinafter
refereed as “Rules of 2013”).

¶104

9.There is another Civil Application No. 5751

¶105

of 2013 moved in Public Interest Litigation No. 27 of
2012 filed by the sitting member of Maharashtra
Legislative Council praying for permitting him to be
an intervenor in the proceedings of Public Interest
Litigation No. 27 of 2012.

¶106

10.The learned Senior Counsel Shri P.M. Shah
submitted that the Rules of 2013 framed by the State
Government were not previously published as
contemplated under Section 25 of the Act of 2004. The
State has erroneously exercised powers in framing the
Rules and publishing the same in the official gazette.
The learned senior counsel referred to the provisions

¶107

of the Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel is

¶108

that as Rules are framed for the first time, the
public participation in submitting objection ought not

¶109

9 PIL27, 33/12 & CAs

¶110

to have been ruled out. The learned senior counsel

¶111

referred to the case law; Avinash Ganpatrao Shegaonkar
and others v. Jayawant @ Babasaheb s/o Vishwanath

¶112

Uttarwar and others, reported in 2010 (4) Mh. L.J.
253, and in the case of Dr. D. C. Wadhwa and others v.
State of Bihar and others, reported in (1987) 1
Supreme Court Cases 378.

¶113

Learned senior counsel Shri P.M. Shah, while

¶114

concluding the submissions had requested this Court
that in case the Court is not willing to accept the

¶115

submissions of the petitioner, then existence of the
present ad-hoc committee be continued for a period of
two weeks.

¶116

11.Learned counsel Shri S.B. Talekar appearing

¶117

for petitioners in Public Interest Litigation No. 33
of 2013 reiterated the objected raised by learned

¶118

senior counsel Shri P.M. Shah in respect of validity,
propriety of drafting the Rules hastily by the State.
According to the learned counsel, the rules framed by

¶119

10 PIL27, 33/12 & CAs

¶120

the State are not the Rules in the eye of Law, they
are not framed in its entirety. The State has framed
those Rules just to accommodate some of the
politicians as members of the committee. The purpose
of framing of Rules has been defeated, which would not

¶121

in the public interest, according to the learned
counsel. Reliance was placed on the provisions of
Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules. It is
submitted that subject Rules ought to have been laid
before both the Houses of Assembly and got approved by
the State Legislature.

¶122

12.Learned counsel Shri P.R. Patil appearing for

¶123

the intervenor submitted that the mandate of law in
respect of passing of statutory Rules had been
violated in this case. Learned counsel Shri V.D. Hon,
appearing for respondent No.6 submitted that there is
total non-compliance and inaction on the part of the
administration in drafting the Rules properly. This

¶124

step of the State Government would further create and
generate litigation. The submission of the learned

¶125

11 PIL27, 33/12 & CAs

¶126

counsel is that the State has framed the Rules to
appoint persons who subscribe to particular political
party or group than to accommodate persons who are
devoted to the thoughts of Shri Sai Baba.

¶127

13.The learned Government Pleader submitted that
the purpose of filing of the Public Interest
Litigations has come to an end, no sooner the State
has officially published the statutory Rules in
compliance of the order passed by this Court and in
compliance of the statutory provisions of the Act of
2004. The approval of the State Legislature at this
stage is not required for, according to the learned
Government Pleader. The Rules are framed and they are
published in the official gazette. The learned
Government Pleader has placed on record communication
received under signature of L.V. Sawant, Desk Officer,
Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai dated
29th April, 2013, addressed to the Government Pleader.

¶128

Based on the said written instructions and
communication, it was submitted that the State be

¶129

12 PIL27, 33/12 & CAs

¶130

permitted to constitute a fresh committee in the light
of the Act and Rules published by the State.

¶131

14.The learned senior counsel Shri V.A. Thorat
submitted that in the matter of nomination of members

¶132

by the State on statutory committee, the intervention
of the Court has to be on exceptional grounds. The
parameters of interference by the Court, in matters of
nomination of members of the committee and selection

¶133

of members of the committee are required to be
appreciated. The petitioners and the intervenors are
apprehending and anticipating that the State
Government in total disregard to the provisions of

¶134

law, would constitute a fresh committee. Such an
apprehension in the light of framing and publication

¶135

of the said Rules is not warranted. The learned
counsel referred to the provisions of Sections 5 and
25 of the Act of 2004. As the Rules are published in
the official gazette, every citizen is supposed to be

¶136

in the knowledge of existence of such Rules. The
Rules do not prohibit any desirous person, according

¶137

13 PIL27, 33/12 & CAs

¶138

to the learned counsel, to apply to the State

¶139

Government, showing his willingness to be a member of

¶140

the committee. Learned senior counsel submitted that
in a Public Interest Litigation of this nature
challenge to the Rules framed cannot be entertained as

¶141

a settled principle of law. The Civil Applications
filed would operate beyond the scope of the petition,
according to the learned senior counsel. In support
of the submissions, learned senior counsel relied on

¶142

the case of Bharat hari Singhania and others v.
Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Central) and others (1994

¶143

Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 46) and in the case of
Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan
(2003 DGLS (Soft.) 556.

¶144

15.By replying to the submissions in respect of

¶145

the Legislative Rules, it is submitted that in the
light of clear provisions of Section 25 of the Act and
subject Rules published in the official gazette, the
StateGovernment’saction/decisioncannotbe

¶146

questioned now. The learned senior counsel submitted

¶147

14 PIL27, 33/12 & CAs

¶148

that as the purpose of the petition is over, the
petition itself should be disposed of. In the

¶149

alternative, it was submitted that the petitioners may
resort to appropriate independent challenge to the
Rules, if they so desire.

¶150

16.We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties at length. Perused the various orders passed
by this Court, the application filed today and case
laws relied upon by the respective parties.

¶151

17.Considering the substance of the prayers made

¶152

in the Public Interest Litigation Nos. 27 of 2012 and

¶153

33 of 2012, we find that they were restricted to the
framing of Rules which the Government failed to frame

¶154

inspite of the order of this Court dated 13th March,
2012. Various issues were raised in respect of
challenge to the powers of the State, the manner and
procedure adopted by the State in framing the
statutory Rules. The questions were raised regarding
the validity of these Rules and its effective framing,

¶155

15 PIL27, 33/12 & CAs

¶156

considering the mandate of the provisions of the Act
of 2004.

¶157

18.We are aware that the committee appointed by
this Court was an ad-hoc committee. The committee

¶158

members included the learned Principal District Judge,
Ahmednagar, the Collector, Ahmednagar and the Chief

¶159

Executive Officer of the Trust. Apart from
discharging their duties in their respective
assignments, the committee members had to look after
and govern the affairs of the Trust which they have
been doing so from 30th March, 2012. During the course
of hearing of Public Interest Litigation No. 18 of
2011, we have noticed that the decisions taken by the
committee were questioned before this Court and from

¶160

time to time this Court had allowed the committee to
go ahead with some of the decisions and in some cases
this Court had stayed, modified or restricted the
decisions taken by the committee. This Court was of
the view and conscious that the committee was an ad-
hoc committee.

¶161

16 PIL27, 33/12 & CAs

¶162

19.In view of the subject matter of the Public
Interest Litigations, considering the subsequent
developments of framing of Rules and its publication
in the official gazette, we find that the purpose of
filing of petition does not survive. A statement of
vital significance was made by the learned Government
Pleader that the State is willing to constitute a new
committee in the light of the Act of 2004 and the
Rules made thereunder.

¶163

20.In view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, we are of the view that the scope of the Public
Interest Litigation need not be expanded by allowing
the amendment applications challenging the validity of
Rules of 2013. The party concerned may raise such
challenge in an independent proceedings if they are so
advised. Therefore, we find it appropriate not to
deal with the issues relating to validity of the Rules
in the proceedings of these petitions.

¶164

17 PIL27, 33/12 & CAs

¶165

administration of the Trust, a committee of deserving
and competent persons is required to be constituted by
the State which would administer the affairs of the
Trust efficiently and sincerely. The State would
certainly be conscious of the fact that sentiments of
millions of people around the globe are very closely
attached with the shrine of Shri Sai Baba (Shirdi).
Considering in its entirety, we find that the State is
required to be permitted now to constitute a fresh
committee strictly in accordance with the provisions
of the Act of 2004 and Rules of 2013.

¶166

O R D E R

¶167

A]The State Government is permitted to
constitute a new managing committee for governing the
affairs of Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust Shirdi, Taluka
Rahata, District Ahmednagar.

¶168

18 PIL27, 33/12 & CAs

¶169

B]The ad-hoc committee appointed by this Court
by an order dated 30th March, 2012 shall continue to
operate for a period of two weeks from today.

¶170

C]In case, the State Government constitutes a

¶171

new committee after a period of two weeks from today,
the ad-hoc committee appointed by this Court would

¶172

cease to operate from the date of coming into
existence of a new committee appointed by the State
Government.

¶173

D]The Ad-hoc Committee is directed not to take
any major financial decision till the new committee is
constituted. The Ad-hoc Committee shall observe the
restrictions put up by this Court under orders passed

¶174

in the Public Interest Litigation No. 18 of 2011 and
the applications filed therein.

¶175

E]The observations made by us in respect of

¶176

submissions made regarding the statutory Rules shall
be construed as prima facie in nature and shall not

¶177

19 PIL27, 33/12 & CAs

¶178

affect the rights of contesting parties if they resort
to challenge the Rules independently.

¶179

F]Both the Public Interest Litigations stand
disposed of and the civil applications stand rejected.

¶180

( A. V. NIRGUDE, J. ) ( NARESH H. PATIL, J. )

¶181

SRM/2/5/13

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Shree Sanatan Dharam Education Society and Anr. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 24 Ors.

Bhujangrao Shripati Vetal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shaikh Hilaluddin Chotumiya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Syed Saleem Syed Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Makarand Jayant Sukhatme and Arn. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Machhindra Appasaheb Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Govt of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Machhindra Appasaheb Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Govt of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendra Devidas Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gangasagar Ramesh Biradar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahadev Balu Giri, C.NO.4270 Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Khalil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Alkabai Prakash Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kaliml Qureshi Chotu Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Alkabai Prakash Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.