Court-appointed administrator must remain impartial and within mandate; conduct aligned with one side justified removal and replacement.

A court-appointed joint administrator may be removed when the appointing order is breached and impartiality is lost. The Bombay HC held that the application was maintainable because the Supreme Court's liberty to approach the High Court extended to interlocutory relief on complaints about the administrator's conduct. On the merits, the administrator was appointed only for day-to-day hospital management, but the record showed unilateral reports, comments on trust disputes, conduct aimed at influencing pending proceedings, and affidavits inconsistent with the record. Those acts transgressed the limits of authority and justified removal and substitution, while the regime of joint administration continued.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application for removal of the joint administrator was maintainable before the High Court. (ii) Whether the conduct of the joint administrator justified his removal and substitution.

Issue (i): Whether the application for removal of the joint administrator was maintainable before the High Court.

Analysis: The order of the Supreme Court left it open to the parties to approach the High Court for appropriate orders in relation to the grievance concerning the administrator's conduct. That liberty was not confined to final hearing and extended to interlocutory relief as well. The High Court therefore had jurisdiction to examine the complaint against the joint administrator.

Conclusion: The application was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the conduct of the joint administrator justified his removal and substitution.

Analysis: The administrator was appointed only to manage the hospital on a day-to-day basis and was not meant to intervene in disputes among trustees. The record showed unilateral reports, comments on trust disputes, conduct timed to influence pending proceedings, and affidavits that were contradicted by the record. In these circumstances, the administrator had departed from the required standard of impartiality and objectivity and had transgressed the bounds of his authority.

Conclusion: The joint administrator was liable to be removed and substituted by another joint administrator.

Final Conclusion: The civil application succeeded to the extent that the impugned joint administrator was removed and a substitute joint administrator was appointed in his place, while the regime of joint administration was retained.

Ratio Decidendi: A court-appointed administrator, especially one occupying a former judicial office, must act strictly within the limits of the appointing order and with demonstrable impartiality and objectivity; conduct showing alignment with one side of the dispute and intervention in collateral litigation warrants removal.

---