Bombay High Court: Anju Shende Trust Order Quashed, Officer Acted With Impropriety

• The Bombay High Court invalidated an administrative directive that halted trustee appointments for the Shree Saptashrung Nivasini Devi Trust.
• The directive was issued by Anju Shende, a special officer, who was found to have acted with gross impropriety and misused the Chief Justice's name.
• Shende's claim of oral instructions from the then Chief Justice regarding a new ordinance was contradicted by the High Court administration, which confirmed no official record existed.
• The ruling, in the case of Vishnu Trimbak Warungase v State of Maharashtra, emphasized the necessity of official documentation for administrative directives.

The bench explicitly noted that the "impugned communication as issued, being attributed to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, is not supported by the record with the registry."

The Bombay High Court recently intervened in the appointment process for the Shree Saptashrung Nivasini Devi Trust in Nashik, issuing a significant ruling that quashed an administrative directive. This directive, which had previously halted the finalization of trustee appointments, was found to be improperly issued. The decision came in the case of Vishnu Trimbak Warungase & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, where participants in the selection process challenged the communication that had disrupted the appointments.

The controversy originated from an email sent on March 14, 2026, by Anju Shende, who served as a special officer to the former Chief Justice. This communication was directed to the Nashik Principal District and Sessions Judge and demanded the immediate withdrawal of a recommended list of five trustees. This list had been finalized just two days prior, on March 12, following a comprehensive interview process, making the Bombay High Court Anju Shende trust order a critical point of contention.

Shende's directive specifically targeted the list of individuals selected to serve as trustees for the prominent religious institution. The participants, whose appointments were put on hold by this administrative action, subsequently sought judicial recourse, leading to the High Court's examination of the directive's legitimacy. The court's eventual decision to quash the Bombay High Court administrative directive highlighted serious concerns regarding the authority and procedure behind its issuance.

A Division Bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale meticulously reviewed the circumstances surrounding the directive, ultimately concluding that Anju Shende, the special officer, had acted with ‘gross impropriety’. The court determined that Shende operated without lawful authority and, critically, misused the name of the Chief Justice in issuing her instructions. This finding of Anju Shende special officer impropriety formed the core of the court's judgment.

Shende had asserted that her email, which ordered the withdrawal of the trustee list, was based on oral instructions received from the then Chief Justice, Shree Chandrashekhar. She further claimed these instructions were related to a newly promulgated state ordinance. However, during the court proceedings, a crucial concession was made by the counsel representing both the High Court administration and the district judge. They admitted that no official submission or proposal concerning the trustee appointments had ever been presented to the Chief Justice, directly contradicting Shende's justification.

The absence of any official record supporting Shende's claims was a pivotal factor in the court's decision. The bench explicitly noted that the "impugned communication as issued, being attributed to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, is not supported by the record with the registry." This statement underscored the lack of formal backing for the directive and confirmed the Chief Justice name misuse.

The Bombay High Court's decision to quash the directive serves as a powerful affirmation of the necessity for strict adherence to administrative due process within the judicial system. The ruling by Justices GS Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale sends a clear message that directives, particularly those impacting significant appointments like those for the Shree Saptashrung Nivasini Devi Trust, must be formally documented and supported by proper authority. The court's finding that the communication lacked registry support highlights the critical importance of transparent and verifiable administrative actions.

This judgment reinforces the principle that even instructions purportedly originating from high-ranking officials, such as a Chief Justice, must follow established protocols and be officially recorded to be considered valid. The court's strong condemnation of the special officer's actions as 'gross impropriety' and misuse of authority underscores the serious implications of bypassing formal channels. It sets a precedent for accountability, ensuring that administrative directives are not issued arbitrarily or without a clear, documented basis.

The case of Vishnu Trimbak Warungase & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Ors thus stands as an important reminder for all administrative bodies within the judiciary to maintain meticulous records and ensure that all official communications are properly authorized and documented. This ensures fairness, transparency, and prevents the abuse of power, safeguarding the integrity of appointment processes and other administrative functions.

This ruling underscores the critical importance of formal, documented administrative processes within judicial systems. Lawyers should advise clients that directives, even those purportedly from high-ranking officials, must be officially recorded and supported by lawful authority to be valid, and can be challenged if issued with 'gross impropriety' or without proper documentation.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlet.