2025:HHC:28168 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13368 of 2025 Decided on: 20.08.2025 Mohan Lal and others … Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : M/s Vinod Sharma and Mamta Kumari, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That an appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to visit the spot and prepare the spot report with regard to the construction of new temple of Jalapa Mata Mandir Rajwahan, other development works, offering of prayers in the temple, transaction of funds in the interest of justice. ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining Respondents No. 4 to 8 from claiming any share in the temple offerings or participating in financial matters 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:28168 unless and until they resume their religious and administrative duties as per the compromise order dated 04.11.2006 (Annexure P-4), and subject to further verification of their compliance and conduct.” 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that as the dispute is primarily a private civil dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. 4. It is not the case of the petitioners that Jalpa Mata Mandir is a temple, which is governed by the provisions of H.P. Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984. It is stated to be a temple which is stated to be constructed over Government land. Simply because there is a temple which is constructed over Government land, it does not means that the petitioners have a right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Accordingly, as prayed for, this petition is allowed to be withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court on the same cause. 6. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 20, 2025 (Rishi)