Officer Who Misused Former Chief Justice’s Name to Stall Temple Trust Appointments Acted With Gross Impropriety, Rules Bombay High Court

Officer Who Misused Former Chief Justice’s Name to Stall Temple Trust Appointments Acted With Gross Impropriety, Rules Bombay High Court in Vishnu Trimbak Warungase v. State of Maharashtra

Case: Vishnu Trimbak Warungase and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Date of Judgment: 29 October 2026
Court: Bombay High Court
Coram: Justice Girish S. Kulkarni and Justice Neela K. Gokhale
Proceedings: Writ Petition No. 5068 of 2026

Court Observation

“In fact, in our view, it is a clear case where the special officer to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice/respondent no. 4 has misused the name of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court in issuing the impugned communication, for reasons which are not coming forth on record.”

Summary

The Bombay High Court has quashed a communication dated 14 March 2026 issued by Anju S. Shende, who was then the Special Officer to the Chief Justice, which directed the withdrawal of a recommended list of trustees of the Shree Saptashrung Nivasini Devi Trust in Nashik and stayed the selection process. The Court held that Shende had acted with gross impropriety and contrary to law, and that her conduct certainly shocks the judicial conscience.

The communication claimed to have been issued pursuant to oral directions of the then Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, who is now a judge of the Supreme Court. The Court found that no proposal had been placed before the then Chief Justice and no approval had been obtained from him, and that there is no provision in the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, which allows the Chief Justice or the Special Officer to issue such a communication on the administrative side. The provision relied on, by which the Charity Commissioner replaced the District Judge for appointing trustees, came into force only on 01 May 2026, after the communication was issued.

Key Holdings

  • A Special Officer cannot issue a communication in the Chief Justice’s name without placing a proposal before him and obtaining his approval; attributing a decision to the Chief Justice in a casual manner amounts to serious misconduct.
  • The directions in the impugned communication cannot, in law, be regarded as a decision of the then Chief Justice, since the communication is not supported by the record with the registry.
  • There is no provision in the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, which allows the Chief Justice, or a Special Officer, to issue such a communication on the administrative side.
  • An officer who misuses the Chief Justice’s name acts with gross impropriety and contrary to law.

Directions Issued

  • The communication dated 14 March 2026 issued by the Special Officer is quashed.
  • The consequential order of the Principal District Judge, Nashik, withdrawing the list of recommended trustees from the website and staying the selection process, is quashed.

Background

The selection of trustees for the Shree Saptashrung Nivasini Devi Trust began with a public advertisement in September 2025, which drew around 625 applications. A list of five recommended candidates was finalised and published on 12 March 2026. Two days later, the Special Officer’s communication directed that the list be withdrawn from the website and kept on hold, and the Principal District Judge, Nashik, who is the ex-officio Chairperson of the trust, immediately issued a consequential order staying the process. Five recommended candidates, led by Vishnu Trimbak Warungase, challenged the communication before the High Court.

Related Articles

Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.

Tags: , ,