BALASAHEB SAKHARAM MULE AND ORS.versusTHE JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER PUNE AND OTHERS.

2026:BHC-AUG:41082


                                                    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
                                      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//