Disposed

Uttamrao Rambhaji Shelke v. the State of Mahrashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Oct 2021PIL/120/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of Civil Application No.9738/2021 and other miscellaneous PIL applications. It held that while the petitioner could consider a new cause of action against the new committee's appointment, they could amend the existing petition to include grievances regarding illegality in the selection process. The Court directed the new managing committee to officially take charge only after a

What did the court decide?

Civil Application No.9738/2021 disposed; petitioner at liberty to prefer a proceeding or amend for grievance; new committee to take charge on 19.10.2021; PIL disposed.

Uttamrao Rambhaji Shelke Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

65ca9738o21

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9738 OF 2021

¶5

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019 WITH

¶7

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶8

Uttamrao Rambhaji Shelke

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

The State Of Mahrashtra And Others

¶11

¶12

WITH

¶13

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5865 OF 2020

¶14

¶15

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶16

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust Shirdi

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶19

¶20

WITH

¶21

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5495 OF 2021

¶22

¶23

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶24

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi

¶25

VERSUS

¶26

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶27

¶28

WITH

¶29

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4579 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶32

Uttamrao Rambhaji Shelke

¶33

VERSUS

¶34

The State Of Mahrashtra And Others

65ca9738o21

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5866 OF 2020 IN

¶39

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶40

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust Shirdi VERSUS

¶41

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶42

¶43

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5799 OF 2021 IN

¶44

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶45

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust Shirdi

¶46

VERSUS

¶47

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶48

¶49

WITH

¶50

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5797 OF 2021 IN

¶51

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶52

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi

¶53

VERSUS

¶54

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶55

¶56

WITH

¶57

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5798 OF 2021

¶58

¶59

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶60

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust Shirdi

¶61

VERSUS

¶62

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶63

¶64

WITH

¶65

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4672 OF 2021 IN

¶66

¶67

65ca9738o21

¶68

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶69

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi VERSUS

¶70

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶71

¶72

WITH

¶73

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13038 OF 2019

¶74

¶75

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶76

Uttamrao Rambhaji Shelke

¶77

VERSUS

¶78

The State Of Mahrashtra And Others

¶79

¶80

WITH

¶81

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4674 OF 2021 IN

¶82

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶83

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi

¶84

VERSUS

¶85

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶86

¶87

WITH

¶88

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3190 OF 2021

¶89

¶90

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2168 OF 2021

¶91

Pramod Dnyandev Gondkar

¶92

VERSUS

¶93

Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Shirdi Through Chief Executive officer

¶94

And Others

¶95

¶96

Shri Chapalgaonkar Shailesh S., Advocate for the Applicant

WITH

65ca9738o21

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4764 OF 2021 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶102

Uttamrao Rambhaji Shelke

¶103

VERSUS

¶104

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶105

¶106

WITH

¶107

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4765 OF 2021

¶108

¶109

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶110

Uttamrao Rambhaji Shelke

¶111

VERSUS

¶112

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶113

¶114

WITH

¶115

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5496 OF 2021

¶116

¶117

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶118

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi

¶119

VERSUS

¶120

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶121

¶122

WITH

¶123

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4686 OF 2021

¶124

¶125

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶126

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi

¶127

VERSUS

¶128

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶129

¶130

WITH

¶131

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2165 OF 2021

¶132

¶133

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶134

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi

65ca9738o21

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶139

¶140

WITH

¶141

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2169 OF 2021

¶142

¶143

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶144

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi

¶145

VERSUS

¶146

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶147

¶148

WITH

¶149

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4485 OF 2020

¶150

¶151

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶152

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust

¶153

VERSUS

¶154

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶155

¶156

WITH

¶157

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4415 OF 2020

¶158

¶159

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶160

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust Shirdi

¶161

VERSUS

¶162

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶163

¶164

WITH

¶165

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4453 OF 2020 IN

¶166

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶167

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi,

¶168

VERSUS

¶169

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

WITH

65ca9738o21

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2575 OF 2021 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶175

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi

¶176

VERSUS

¶177

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶178

¶179

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2168 OF 2021

¶180

¶181

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶182

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi

¶183

VERSUS

¶184

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶185

¶186

WITH

¶187

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4406 OF 2020

¶188

¶189

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶190

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust Shirdi

¶191

VERSUS

¶192

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶193

¶194

WITH

¶195

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4454 OF 2020

¶196

¶197

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶198

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust Shirdi,

¶199

VERSUS

¶200

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶201

¶202

WITH

¶203

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.748 OF 2021

¶204

¶205

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶206

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi

¶207

7 65ca9738o21

¶208

VERSUS

¶209

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶210

¶211

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4409 OF 2020

¶212

¶213

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.120 OF 2019

¶214

¶215

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi

¶216

VERSUS

¶217

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶218

¶219

Ms.Pradnya S. Talekar i/by Talekar and Associates, Advocate for the Applicant/ PIL Petitioner.

¶220

Shri R.N.Dhorde, Senior Advocate, Special Counsel a/w Shri D.R. Kale, Government Pleader, for respondent No.1/ State. Shri A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust in all

¶221

matters.

¶222

Shri V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 7. Shri V.D. Hon, Senior Advocate h/f Shri A.V. Hon, Advocate for

¶223

respondent No.6

¶224

Shri Shailesh S. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the applicant in CA/3190/2021.

¶225

¶226

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

¶227

S.G. MEHARE, JJ.

¶228

DATE :- 04^th October, 2021

¶229

Per Court :-

¶230

We have extensively heard the learned advocate for

¶231

the applicant/ PIL petitioner, the learned Senior Advocate as a Special Counsel for the State of Maharashtra and the learned

¶232

counsel for the respective sides.

¶233

8 65ca9738o21

¶234

The issue before us is as to whether, the Civil Application No.9738/2021 filed by the applicant/ PIL petitioner should be allowed so as to consider a cause of action against the appointment of a new part-committee by the State of Maharashtra vide the notification dated 16.09.2021 or whether, the applicant be at liberty to initiate a separate petition for challenging the said notification and the appointments made by the State Government to the Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi.

¶235

On 21.09.2021, we had recorded the submissions of

¶236

the learned counsel and we had also taken into account the fact that some of the newly appointed members of the committee had organized a felicitation function on occupying their respective positions without showing any respect to the learned Principal District Judge under whose chairmanship, this Court had formed an ad-hoc committee. After noting the submissions, we had passed the following order on 21.09.2021 :-

¶237

“1. By this Civil Application, the PIL petitioner has sought leave to amend the pleadings in the PIL.

¶238

2. The learned AGP on instructions and Shri Bajaj on instructions from respondent no.2 Sansthan seek time to file a reply and oppose the Civil Application.

¶239

3. During the brief hearing on the Civil Application today, the learned Advocate for the petitioner points out paragraphs 12, 13 and 14

¶240

¶241

65ca9738o21

¶242

of the order passed by this Court on 9^th October, 2019, which reads as under :

¶243

“12. It may not be out of place to refer to the order dated 13^th March, 2012, passed by this Court in Public Interest Litigation No. 18 of 2011, wherein this Court thought it fit to appoint a committee to supervise, monitor and look after the financial affairs of the Sansthan. The committee so constituted was consisting of the Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar, the Collector, Ahmednagar and the Chief Executive Officer of Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust, Shirdi.

¶244

13. We deem it appropriate to appoint ad hoc committee consisting of the Principal District Judge of Ahmednagar, the Chief Executive Officer of Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust, Shirdi, one delegatee, not below the rank of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, through the Charity Commissioner of State of Maharashtra and the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik.

¶245

14. We further direct that any major policy decision or financial decision, wherein the amount involved is more than Rs.50 lakhs be submitted to the said committee for its approval, except for routine expenses as referred to in the order dated 30^th January, 2019 in Public Interest Litigation Nos. 152 of 2018 and 86 of 2018.”

¶246

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the State Government has appointed a new Managing Committee for the Sansthan vide Notification dated 16.09.2021 which is termed as the Managing Committee. The said Managing Committee has taken charge of their offices in the Sansthan on 17^th September, 2021.

¶247

5. The learned AGP submits that firstly, he will have to take instructions on the Civil Application in view of the grave urgency expressed by the petitioner and secondly, once the charge has been taken by the new committee, this Court may refrain from passing

65ca9738o21

any orders.

6. We have no doubts that the State Government is empowered to appoint the Managing Committee for Shree Sai Baba Sansthan, Shirdi. However, the peculiar circumstances in which we had passed an order on 9^th October, 2019, especially the reproduced paragraphs 12, 13 and 14, would indicate that this Court had brought a Committee into existence to supervise, monitor and administer the Sansthan and its financial affairs. The learned Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar, the Collector, Ahmednagar, the Chief Executive Officer of the Sansthan, one delegatee of the Charity Commissioner, State of Maharashtra, not below the rank of an Assistant Charity Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik were members of the Committee that we had constituted. We had thus empowered the Committee to administer the Sansthan and the Committee was performing its functions under the orders of this Court passed in the PIL from time to time. When we had brought a committee into existence and had empowered it to function and administer the Sansthan, prima facie, no other Managing Committee could have dislodged the Committee that we had constituted, on the plea of the Government having declared the formation of the new Committee. In short, the new Committee could not have taken charge without obtaining orders from this Court as we would then be required to discharge the Committee that we had constituted.

¶252

¶253

The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that a meeting has been arranged on 26^th September, 2019 and there are certain issues on the agenda pertaining to huge financial transactions. We find from our order dated 9^th October, 2019 that any expenditure beyond Rs.50 lakhs was to be submitted to the Committee and this Court has been issuing orders from time to time, approving certain expenditure.

¶254

11 65ca9738o21

¶255

8. Since the learned AGP seeks time, we are posting this matter on 23^rd September, 2021 at 2.30 pm. Until then, the new Committee, which is alleged to have taken charge by dislodging the Committee that we had constituted, shall refrain from taking any policy decision, sanction expenditure and shall also refrain from making any appointments or inducting any new members, if any, until further orders.

¶256

9. Stand over to 23^rd September, 2021 at 2.30 p.m.”

¶257

We have considered the extensive submissions today on the Civil Application No.9738/2021. The interim arrangement that we had ordered in paragraph 8 (reproduced above), was continued until further orders since the learned Government Pleader had sought time on 23.09.2021 to file a reply to the Civil Application.

¶258

The PIL was filed in 2019 wherein, prayer clauses A

¶259

to E were put forth as under :-

¶260

“A) To direct the respondent No.1 to appoint the new Managing Committee of the Sansthan for the year 2019-2022, by issuing a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the case may be;

¶261

B) To appoint ad-hoc committee pursuant to the directions of this Hon’ble Court dated 13.03.2012 passed in PIL No.18 of 2021 on account of expiration of term of the Managing Committee of the Sansthan, pending hearing and final disposal of this petition;

¶262

C) To direct the Committee not to take major

¶263

12 65ca9738o21

¶264

policy and financial decisions without prior permission of this Hon’ble Court, pending hearing and final disposal of the petition; D) To direct the respondent no.1 to reconsider the major policy and financial decisions taken by the inadequate coram of the Managing Committee since February, 2019 at the earliest by issuing a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the case may be;

¶265

E) To appoint an administrator to manage the affairs of the Sansthan as per section 34(3) of the Act on the ground of incompetency of the Managing Committee to manage the affairs of the Sansthan and the term of Managing Committee had expired on 27.07.2019, by issuing a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the case may be;”

¶266

By the various orders passed by this Court and especially under the order dated 09.10.2019, an adhoc committee was appointed under the chairmanship of the learned Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar and we had directed the said committee to perform certain functions, which answered prayer clauses B to E put forth in the PIL. With such development, prayer clause A was to be considered as the petitioner had sought a direction to the State Government to appoint a new managing committee as per rules. Pursuant to the notification dated 16.09.2021, a new managing committee has been appointed

¶267

thereby, answering prayer clause A set out in the PIL petition. The PIL virtually stands worked out.

¶268

By this Civil Application, the petitioner has put forth a serious grievance as regards the constitution of the new committee. An extensive amendment has been sought to the PIL pointing out that the new committee could not have taken charge ex-parte showing utter disregard and disrespect to the order of this Court dated 09.10.2019 as well as the learned Principal District Judge, who was the chairperson of the committee. The amendment is sought so as to assail the notification dated 16.09.2021 and for seeking the continuance of the ad-hoc committee appointed by this Court.

¶269

The learned Senior Advocate and the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the civil application contending that if the petitioner desires to assail the notification constituting a new committee and/or the selection of individual members on the said committee for being de-hors the rules, the petitioner might as well file a new petition since this is an independent and a new cause of action.

¶270

The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would prefer a new petition keeping in view that

¶271

14 65ca9738o21

¶272

there are several gross illegalities in the notification dated 16.09.2021 as well as the choice of the members who are disqualified from being nominated on the committee. The candidates selected as members of the committee need to be placed under the scanner as the petitioner has noticed grave illegalities in their selection and nomination. The learned advocate, therefore, prays that the directions issued by this Court in paragraph 8 of the order dated 21.09.2021, which have been continued even till this date, could be continued for further period of three weeks.

¶273

The learned Senior Advocate submits that the State Government has declared it’s decision to open the temples/ shrines/ religious places/ places of worship, w.e.f. 07.10.2021. Within the limits of the guidelines as may be mandated by the State Government permitting the devotees from coming to the temple, the committee will have to take several decisions in order to ensure that the attendance of devotees is monitored so as to prevent any untoward situation. The CEO on the Sansthan is an IAS officer, who is a direct entrant in the service and with the assistance of such CEO, the committee should be granted certain liberties to ensure the smooth functioning of the Sansthan. It is,

¶274

15 65ca9738o21

¶275

therefore, submitted that the powers of the committee flowing from the Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) Act, 2004, need to be granted to these members. Presently, there are 12 members appointed out of a maximum of 17.

¶276

Considering the above, the Civil Application No.9738/2021 filed by the PIL petitioner, is disposed off with the following directions :-

¶277

(a) The applicant/ petitioner is at liberty to prefer a proceeding as may be advised.

¶278

(b) The directions issued by this Court in paragraph 8 of the order dated 21.09.2021 reproduced above, would continue only till 19.10.2021.

¶279

(c) Subject to any orders passed by a Court in the litigation, if initiated by the petitioner or any other litigant, the newly appointed managing committee would officially take charge from the learned Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar, who is the chairman of the adhoc committee in force, on 19.10.2021 in between 05:00 pm to 6:30 pm.

¶280

(d) Prior to 19.10.2021, the learned PDJ, Ahmednagar in coordination with the CEO of the Sansthan, shall

¶281

hold the meeting of the adhoc committee for ensuring the smooth opening of the temple on 07.10.2021 and monitor the same until 19.10.2021.

¶282

Considering the above, this PIL is disposed off. The

¶283

amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the PIL petitioner would be returned to him.

¶284

The pending Civil Applications for seeking permission of this Court for various purposes, also stand disposed off, with the rider that all issues put forth in the Civil Applications may be taken up by the new committee after 19.10.2021, subject to there being no legal impediment.

¶285

(S.G. MEHARE, J.) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

¶286

kps

Uttamrao Rambhaji Shelke v. the State of Mahrashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttamrao Rambhaji Shelke v. the State of Mahrashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dileep v Saptarshi and 2 Ors. vs Assistant Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai-H West Ward and 3 Ors.

Jagruk Nagarik Manch Thr Its President Suhas Chintaman Mulay Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Yuvraj Babusingh Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajkumar Ambulal Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhav Ambadasrao Nirmal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhushan Ishwar Mahajan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Asif Shaukat Qureshi vs Union of India, through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and Another

Janardan Gulabrao Moon vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Others

Manohar Ahilaji Kole and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gaurish Yogesh Dabhade Minor Thr His Guardian Manasi Yogesh Dabhade Vs Union of India Thr Its Secretary and Others

Rajesh Balmukund Mandhani and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi through Chief Executive Officer Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi Thr Its Chief Executive Officer Kanhuraj Harishchandra Bagate Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Others

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi Thr Its Chief Executive Officer Kanhuraj Harishchandra Bagate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others