BHAGWAT SOPAN BANKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. B. Talekar for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. A. R. Kale for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and learned Advocate Mr. S. D. Kotkar holding for learned Advocate Mr. Tejas Kotkar for the applicants in Civil Application No.12385 of 2025.

(3.) It will not be out of place to mention here that Civil Application No.12385 of 2025 has been filed for intervention, wherein the applicant contends that he is the person, on whose complaint and representations, the State Government has intervened in the provisions of Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan Trust (Shingnapur) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the "Shingnapur Trust Act") and appointed an Administrator over the Trust and, therefore, he intends to intervene. We do not find any substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. He might have filed complaint or representations, but he has no personal interest and has not demonstrated except by way of verification. No separate affidavit has also been filed showing his interest. Hence, the said application deserves to be rejected.