2025:HHC:29928 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 13359 of 2025 Decided on : 03.09.2025 Devotees of Himalayan Brahmo Samaj …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Rajender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners, who claim themselves to be the devotees of Himalayan Brahmo Samaj, Shimla, have approached this Court for issuance of a direction to the respondents to ensure the protection of their fundamental right enshrined under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and to permit the petitioners to perform the worship and other activities in their temple. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General, in light of the 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29928 previous order, has obtained instructions and perusal of the instructions demonstrates that there is dispute going on between Trustees of Himalayan Brahmo Samaj on one hand and Ram Krishan Mission, on the other hand. Further, in terms of the instructions, there are civil litigations also pending between the Trustees of Himalayan Brahmo Samaj, in which proceedings Ram Krishan Mission as well as certain fake bodies of Himalayan Brahmo Samaj, have been restrained from interfering in the property of the trust. Learned Additional Advocate General, in these circumstances submits that the petitioner would be well advised to seek appropriate directions in the proceedings of which learned Civil Court is already seized of, as any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will further lead to multiplicity of litigations and that too, between two different Foras, one exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code and the other exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. As the contents of the instructions are not in dispute, this Court is of the considered view that it would be in 3 2025:HHC:29928 the interest of justice, in case, the petitioners approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal of their grievance. Accordingly, these proceedings are closed, without any observation on the issues raised herein, but with liberty to the petitioners to approach appropriate Fora, for redressal of their grievance. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 03, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)