Dismissed¶31

Kamla Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Jul 2026CWP/10855/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP No.10855 of 2026 | Kamla Devi v. State of H.P. and others | High Court of Himachal Pradesh | Decided 3 July 2026 | Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. | Dismissal — same relief already decided in CWP No.5289 of 2025 | Shop/kiosk allotment, Sheetla Mata Temple, Village Bhoun, Sundernagar, Mandi | Temple Committee (Society, Societies Registration Act 2006) not State/other authority under Article 12 — writ maintainability | Encroachment over government land — representation rejected 21.04.2026 | Petitioner left to seek appropriate legal remedy.

What did the court decide?

Since a decision had already been rendered on the subject matter in CWP No.5289 of 2025 and the present writ petition in essence seeks the same relief, it was not appropriate to entertain the petition; it was accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous applications.

Kamla Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the present writ petition, seeking allotment of a shop in the Sheetla Mata Temple complex on the ground that shops were allotted to committee members without following prescribed procedure, should be entertained when a decision on the same subject matter had already been rendered in CWP No.5289 of 2025.

¶31

Court's answer

¶31

Key takeaways

It is open to the petitioner to seek whatever appropriate remedy is available to her in law for redressal of her grievances.obiter¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Kamla Devi v. State of H.P. and others, CWP No.10855 of 2026, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, decided on 3rd July, 2026 (Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua). Petitioner, running a kiosk for more than 20 years at Sheetla Mata Temple, Village Bhoun, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, sought allotment of a shop in the temple complex and complained that shops constructed by respondent No.5-Sheetla Mata Temple Committee had been allotted to its members without following prescribed procedure. The Court observed that the subject matter had already been dealt with in CWP No.5289 of 2025, in which the Co-ordinate Bench held the writ petition not maintainable because the Committee — a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 2006 — was neither a State nor other Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, while leaving it open to the Society to sympathetically consider the petitioner's representation. An intervening petition, CWP No.2194 of 2026, regarding encroachment over government land, was disposed of on 11.03.2026 with a direction to decide the representation, which was rejected on 21.04.2026 — an order the Court found unrelated to the present grievance. Holding that the present petition in essence sought the same relief as CWP No.5289 of 2025, the Court declined to entertain it and dismissed it alongwith pending miscellaneous applications, leaving the petitioner free to seek appropriate remedy available in law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.10855 of 2026

¶3

Decided on: 3^rd July, 2026

¶4

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kamla Devi …..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4.

¶12

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶13

Petitioner is with the grievance that even though

¶14

she is running a kiosk in Sheetla Mata Temple at Village Bhoun, Post Office Kalhod, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi for the last more than 20 years, however, despite assurance extended to her by the official respondents regarding allotment of shop in the temple complex in her favour, shop has not been allotted to her till date. The shops constructed by respondent No.5-Sheetla Mata

¶15

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶16

¶17

Temple Committee in the temple complex have been allotted to the members of the said committee without following the procedure prescribed in law.

¶18

2. The writ file reflects that for somewhat similar relief, petitioner had preferred CWP No.5289 of 2025, alleging therein that shops constructed by the Sheetla Mata Temple Committee were being allotted without following any transparent procedure. The writ petition was disposed of as under:-

¶19

“By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court against the alleged act of respondent No.4 of allotting certain shops constructed by it without following any transparent procedure.

¶20

2. This is strongly refuted by respondent No.4 which respondents, inter alia, has taken a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that as respondent No.4 is neither a State nor other Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction as was urged on its behalf by the learned counsel appearing.

¶21

3. Taking into consideration the fact that respondent No.4 is just a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 2006 and it has no traits of either a State or other Authority, this Court concurs with the submissions so made by learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶22

4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of without any adjudication on merit but with the observation that the disposal of this writ petition shall not come in the way of the Society to sympathetically consider the representation made by the petitioner by taking into consideration the fact that as per the petitioner, she for the last 25 years selling Pooja Samagri in the premises of Maa Sheetala Mata Mandir

¶23

¶24

at Sundernagar. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.”

¶25

In the aforesaid decision, Hon’ble Co-ordinate

¶26

Bench held petitioner’s writ petition to be not maintainable as present respondent No.5 (respondent No.4 therein) was neither a State nor other Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. While disposing of the writ petition as not maintainable on the aforesaid ground, it was observed that it shall be open for respondent No.5 (respondent No.4 therein) to sympathetically consider the representation of the petitioner.

¶27

3. It appears that the petitioner had instituted another writ petition, bearing CWP No.2194 of 2026, seeking decision of her representation dated 19.12.2025 pertaining to alleged encroachments over the government land. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 11.03.2026 without examining the merits of the matter, but with direction to the competent authority to decide the representation. The said representation pertaining to encroachment over government land was rejected by the competent authority on 21.04.2026. The said order,

¶28

¶29

however, has no concern with the present grievance of the

¶30

petitioner.

¶31

In view of the decision having already been rendered on the subject matter in CWP No.5289 of 2025, it would not be appropriate to entertain this writ petition, which in essence, seeks same relief as claimed in CWP No.5289 of 2025. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. It is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy as may be available to her in law for the redressal of her grievances.

¶32

July 03, 2026 Mukesh

¶33

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Kamla Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamla Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Milestone Gears Pvt. Ltd. Unit-Vii Vs Amar Singh Bhatia and Another

Sabiya Khatoon and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Raj Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Shyam Lal and Ors. Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Anr.

Asha Rani Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Subhash Chand Vs State of Hp and Others