1 912-fa-530-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 530 OF 2026 Baburao Eknath Belote and Others VERSUS The Joint Charity Commissioner Pune and Others ... Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Amit. S. Savale AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.K. Shirse Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. A.G. Ambetkar Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mr. Vinod P. Patil WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 267 OF 2026 IN FA/530/2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3393 OF 2026 IN FA/530/2026 ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026 P.C.: 1. Present appeal is filed under Section 41-E of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MPT Act’ for the sake of brevity), in order to challenge order dated 23.01.2026 passed by learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune in Application No.27 of 2025. 2. The dispute revolves around the substitution of idol in a temple run by Shri Devi Bhoyre Trust, which is a registered public trust under MPT Act bearing PTR No.A/63 (Ahmednagar). The said application is filed by present respondent nos.2 to 4, who claim to be worshipers and devotees of the temple. 3. The contention of respondent nos.2 to 4 is that the idol of 2026:BHC-AUG:41082 2 912-fa-530-2026.odt goddess installed almost a century ago in the temple is an old idol and that the sentiments and religious beliefs of the devotees are associated with the said idol. The contention is that there is absolutely no need for replacement of old idol with a new one. 4. The appellants are trustees of the said trust. They have passed a resolution for changing the idol predominantly on the ground that the idol is deformed over a period of years and as per Hindu beliefs, such deformed idol should not be worshiped. It appears from the record that meeting of villagers were held in which decision was taken to substitute the idol. Learned Joint Charity Commissioner has invoked Section 41-E of the MPT Act in order to pass an order restraining the trustees from removing, replacing, shifting, reinstalling and/or otherwise disturbing the existing idol of Shri Ambika Mata installed in the said temple. While passing the impugned order, learned Joint Charity Commissioner has observed that religious aspects of the matter fall beyond the scope of jurisdiction under Section 41-E. Learned Joint Charity Commissioner has held that the idol is property of the trust and further that having regard to the conflicting technical reports by respondent nos.2 to 4 and the appellants, it cannot be held conclusively that the idol was required to be substituted due to deformities or condition as alleged by the trustees. The order is passed on the ground that substitution of idol will make the situation 3 912-fa-530-2026.odt irreversible and that material on record is not sufficient to establish any urgent need for substitution. 5. It must be stated that it is not the allegation of respondent nos.2 to 4/original applicants that old idol was sought to be replaced by new one in order to alienate or dispose of the same. It is not the contention of respondent nos.2 to 4 that after replacement of idol, the trustees intended to dispose of the same. 6. In this regard, it will be appropriate to refer to Section 41-E of the MPT Act which states that in a case where the Charity Commissioner or the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner through report or on an application by at least two persons having interest that the trust property is in danger of being wasted, damaged or improperly alienated by any trustee or any other person, or that the trustee or such person threatens, or intends to remove or dispose of the property of trust, appropriate order of temporary injunction can be passed to prevent waste, damage, improper alienation, sale, removal or disposition of such property. The jurisdiction under Section 41-E can be exercised only if the aforesaid situation exists. 7. As noticed above, the trustees have taken a decision to substitute the old idol in the temple with a new one. The trustees have also attempted to make a fair assessment of opinion of villagers as can be seen from the record which indicates that the meeting of villagers in 4 912-fa-530-2026.odt this regard was held. As recorded above, the contents of the application would reveal that there is no allegation with respect to removal of the idol from temple premises or alienation or disposal thereof. The only contention raised is that the idol is in a good condition and that there is no need to substitute the same. I am afraid, the allegations are insufficient to attract the prerequisite of Section 41-E(1) of the MPT Act. 8. Although, learned Joint Charity Commissioner has observed that the replacement of existing idol will result in change of permanent and irreversible character, that by itself is not sufficient to invoke enabling provision of Section 41-E. It needs to be reiterated that unless property of the trust is in danger of being wasted or damaged or alienated improperly or removed or disposed of, the jurisdiction of Section 41-E cannot be exercised. The order does not record that any such exigency exists. 9. Although, the contents of the application and reasons recorded in the impugned order do not make out a case for exercise of powers under Section 41-E, having regard to the fact that the dispute pertains to an old idol in a place of religious worship, it is necessary to issue appropriate directions for securing the old idol which is sought to be substituted by a new one. It is directed that after the old idol is substituted by a new idol, the old idol shall also be retained in the 5 912-fa-530-2026.odt temple. It will be kept in a respectable manner visible for Darshan for devotees of the temple. The old idol shall not be removed from the temple premises. It shall not be sold or alienated in any manner whatsoever. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed by quashing and setting aside order dated 23.01.2026 passed by learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune in Application No.27 of 2025. 11. The contention with respect to religious sentiments of devotees etc. are not considered since, the same cannot be subject matter of inquiry in proceedings under Section 41-E. In the event, respondent nos.2 to 4 intend to approach learned Civil Court with respect to right of worship etc., the present order as also the impugned order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner will obviously not come in the way of either parties, since the adjudication of present controversy merely involves the issue as to whether the facts of the case are sufficient to invoke Section 41-E of the MPT Act. 12. Pending cross objection as well as civil applications stand disposed of. [ROHIT W. JOSHI J.] Mujaheed//