Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar:
The management of the Shri Saibaba Sansthan, Shirdi is currently being handled by a three-member ad hoc committee appointed by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Despite this, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Sansthan had filed a civil application before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, seeking permission to allow the formation of a government-appointed “administrative committee.” On Tuesday (Sept 23), the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court rejected this request. As a result, the CEO withdrew the application.
During the hearing, Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Y G Khobragade expressed strong displeasure that the CEO had filed the civil application without the consent of the ad hoc committee or passing any resolution in this regard. After the court’s observations, the CEO sought permission to withdraw the plea, which the bench allowed.
What was the civil application about?
Since September 13, 2022, the Shirdi Sansthan has been managed by a court-appointed ad hoc committee consisting of – The Principal District Judge of Ahilyanagar, The District Collector, and The Sansthan’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO).
This committee cannot make major financial or policy decisions without prior permission from the High Court. Each time such a decision is needed, the Sansthan must file a civil application, which causes procedural delays.
To avoid these delays, the Sansthan’s CEO had requested the State Government to form a government-led administrative committee and approached the High Court for permission to implement it.
Proposed government administrative committee
According to the State Government’s plan, the committee would include chairperson — Guardian Minister of Ahilyanagar district; co-chairperson — District Collector of Ahilyanagar and members — Shirdi MP, MLAs of Kopargaon, Sangamner, and Shrirampur, the administrator of the Shirdi Municipal Council, and the CEO of the Sansthan. The government had suggested that the Sansthan seek the High Court’s permission to set up this committee.
Objections raised — contempt of court concern
Objecting to the plea, intervenors Adv. Ajinkya Kale and Adv. Kiran Nagarkar argued that under Section 34 of the Sansthan Act, such a government-appointed committee cannot be constituted while a court-appointed ad hoc committee is already functioning. They contended that forming an administrative committee in place of the ad hoc committee would amount to contempt of court.