Disposed

Hari Ram v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Mar 2024CWP/381/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition regarding disputes on distribution of temple duty and induction of new members disposed without merits. Court directed department to convene a meeting of stakeholders to settle issues amicably.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Additional Deputy Commissioner to convene a meeting of stakeholders within three weeks to settle distribution of duty, offerings, and induction of new members.

Hari Ram Vs State of Hp — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.381 of 2016 Date of Decision: 15.3.2024

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Hari Ram ……...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

¶4

……...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Naveen Awasthi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, for the State. Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Het Ram Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for respondents No.5 to 7. ___________________________________________________________________________

¶5

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶6

While placing on record communication dated 1.1.2024, issued under the signature of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, HP., Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states that having taken note of the pendency of the instant petition before this court, matter with regard to distribution of duty was reconsidered by the Temple Officer, Shri Shiv Mandir Mahakal, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, but in case, petitioner is still not satisfied, matter can be

¶7

¶8

settled amicably after convening a meeting of all the stakeholders for re-drawing the duty charter.

¶9

2. Mr. Naveen Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner states that though dispute with regard to distribution of duty can be settled afresh in terms of the aforesaid instructions placed on record, but by way of instant petition, petitioner has also raised issue with regard to induction of new members i.e. respondents No.5 to 7, which also needs to be adjudicated.

¶10

3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to reply filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 states that as per record, respondents No.5 to 7 are the legal heirs of late Viptu, who was earlier in receipt of the offerings of the temple and as such, they cannot otherwise have any objection to the induction of the private respondents. He states that, otherwise also, aforesaid issue cannot be decided in the instant proceedings and for that purpose, the petitioner may have to file appropriate proceedings, if so desired.

¶11

4. Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 2 to 4 states that though offerings collected from the temple are being distributed monthly, but if Court directs, same can be distributed on yearly basis.

¶12

5. Since Additional Commissioner, vide communication dated 1.1.2024, has expressed intention of the department to settle the matter amicably, this Court without going into the merits of the

¶13

¶14

case deems it fit to dispose of the present petition at this stage with direction to the aforesaid authority to convene a meeting of all the stakeholders at an early date and decide the issues with regard to distribution of duty, offerings as well as induction of respondents No.5 to 7. Ordered accordingly.

¶15

6. Aforesaid authority shall fix meeting within three weeks, with prior intimation to all the stakeholders, including the petitioner so that dispute, if any, inter-se parties is settled for all times to come. Needless to say, previous amount on account of offerings, if not paid to the petitioner as well as other stakeholders, be paid/released expeditiously. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.

¶16

March 15, 2024

¶17

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶18

manjit

Hari Ram v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Ram v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Damodar Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Bionexy Pharma Vs Hpsebl and Others

Sarup Lal Upadhyay Vs State of Hp and Others

Sudhakar Sen and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Navjot Singh and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Natraj Packaging Solutions Vs Hpsebl and Others