Mumbai: Holding that the then special officer to former Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar had “misused” his name to direct withdrawal of a list of selected trustees to a religious trust in Nashik, Bombay high court has quashed and set aside a March 14 communication she had issued.
The former CJ is now a Supreme Court judge and the officer, Anju Shende, a principal district and sessions judge in Pune.
Justices
Girish Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale on Thursday said they refuse to believe that the directions contained in the communication can, in law, be considered to be the then CJ’s decision. They noted that the former CJ’s name was misused “for reasons which are not coming forth on record”.
The bench also quashed and set aside a consequential order of Srichand Jagamlani, then Nashik principal district and sessions judge, issued on March 14, withdrawing the list of trustees from the website and staying it.
The judgment was delivered on a petition by five selected/recommended candidates of Shree Saptashshrung Nivasini Devi Trust. They challenged Shende’s March 14 communication, in which she stated that “in pursuance to the telephonic talk at the discretion of the Chief Justice of the Bombay high court, it is hereby conveyed that the list of recommended trustees... published by your office must be withdrawn from the website and kept on hold until further directions”.
Jagamlani immediately issued an order saying the list was withdrawn and stayed till HC’s further directions.
Senior advocate Anil Sakhare, for the petitioners, argued there is no provision in Maharashtra Public Trusts Act which allows HC, its CJ or the special officer to issue such a communication on the administrative side. Senior advocate Sharan Jagtiani, for Shende, said she would not defend the decision. However, he said, the decision was not taken unilaterally but on the directions of the then CJ.
Sakhare said the selection process culminated in the final list of trustees published on March 12 after a detailed procedure was undertaken by Jagamlani, as the trust’s ex officio chairman. It was at this juncture that Shende wrote to Jagamlani, he said.
Under the trust scheme, five of the seven trustees have to be appointed by the district judge. Shende’s March 14 communication referred to the Maharashtra Public Trusts (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025, stating that Jagamlani should have consulted HC. However, HC judges noted that the relevant section by which the charity commissioner replaced the district judge to appoint trustees came into force only on May 1 and not when Shende issued the communication on March 14.
On Oct 27, the judges prima facie observed that as per established practice, an office submission is required to be placed before the CJ or the committee judges for approval before orders are communicated to the district judge. Jagtiani and advocate Rajesh Datar, for HC and district judge/chairman, said no such submission was placed before the then CJ and his approval was not taken before issuing the communication. The judges refused to accept Shende’s contentions, made in her affidavit, “when everything is being attributed to” the then CJ in the absence of material in that regard. They said Shende “acted with gross impropriety and contrary to law”. “The impugned communication cannot be sustained,” they said.
