1 2025:HHC:34148 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No. 684 of 2025 Date of decision: 25.09.2025 __________________________________________________________ Devotees of Himalayan Brahmo Samaj, Shimla …..Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others . …Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajinder Sharma and Mr. Tejasvi Dogra. Advocates. For the respondent: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice ( O ral) This matter has been taken up on account of a Mention Memo on an apprehension by the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 23 of 2024, titled The Himalayan Brahma Samaj Shimla & another Vs. Union of India & others, which was taken up yesterday and has been tagged with Cr.WP No. 24 of 2024, titled Sheetal Vyas Vs, State of Himachal Pradesh & others, that the appellants are 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 wanting to take possession by force of the premises of Ram Krishan Mission. 2. Apparently, though we had tagged the present LPA with Cr.WP No. 24 of 2024 yesterday on account of the fact there was a specific reference in the writ petition which had been filed before the learned Single Judge, regarding FIR No. 206/2004, dated 17.11.2024, under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 298, 324(4), 351(2), 79 & 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Boileaugang, Shimla registered against the saint of Ram Krishan Mission and the goons and students of ABVP of H.P. University. 3. It is not disputed that various proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR and connected FIRs, are already pending consideration before this Court in Cr.WP No. 24 of 2024. It was in such circumstances that we had tagged this LPA with Cr.WP No. 24 of 2024 yesterday only. 4. The order impugned dated 03.09.2025, which is subject matter of consideration in the present LPA passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 13359 of 2025, is that the petitioners/appellants herein would be at liberty to approach the Civil Court, as the matter is already pending there and the learned Single Judge has closed the proceedings, since the litigation is pending between the 3 Trustees of Himalayn Brahmo Samaj and certain fake bodies of the said Samaj and that of Ram Krishan Mission. 5. 5. The prayers in the writ petition out of which, the present LPA has arisen, were as under:- “(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to ensue protection of the fundamental rights of the petitioner as enshrined under Article 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India and to permit the petitioner i.e. the devotees and followers of Brahmo Samaj to access in their temple and permit to perform the worship and other activities in their temple as per their culture. (ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to take immediate possession of the temple from the wrong doers I.e saint of Ram Krishan Mission. (iii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to pass appropriate order for further management of Brahmo Samaj Temple, Shimla by ensuring the fundamental rights of the petitioner of worship.” 6. It is thus apparent that the petitioners who claim to be devotees of the Himalayan Brahmo Samaj, Shimla, have admitted that they are not in possession of the premises and by way of filing the writ petition, are seeking relief. It was in such circumstances that in the morning 4 session, we had called upon the State to ensure that there is no law and order problem and on earlier occasions FIR No. 206 of 2024, dated 17.11.2024 had already been lodged alongwith FIR Nos. 204 of 2024, 205 of 2024, 207 of 2024, 212 of 2024, & 215 of 2024. 7. Report (appended with photographs), of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Shimla, has also been received, that whatever guard has been deployed in the premises of the Ram Krishan Mission, is present there and no other person is present there. 8. It is also interesting to note that in the writ petition which was filed before the learned Single Judge, only the official respondents were arrayed as party respondents. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition itself was not maintainable since the necessary parties were not arrayed as respondents therein. Obviously, an attempt was made to take interim order by filing the writ petition at the cost of certain set of persons who admittedly are already in possession. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition was misconceived and was an attempt to take possession of the premises through the process of Court. 5 9. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the argument raised that the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 would apply in the facts and circumstances of the case, are totally misconceived. 10. It is settled principle that the writ Court is to be approached with clean hands. The moment a person tries to hoodwink the Court and conceal facts, the Writ Court will not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Reference can be made to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in M/S Prestige Lights Ltd. vs. State Bank Of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449, wherein it was held that when a party approaches a High Court, it must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. The writ petition is devoid of the pending litigation before us. The relevant part of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- 6 “33. It is thus clear that though the appellant- Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226  of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. 34. The object underlying the above principle has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in R.v. Kensington Income Tax Comms, 4 (1917) 1 KB 486: 86 LJ KB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA) in the following words: "It has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should made a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help itthe Court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside, any action 7 which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement". (emphasis supplied) 35. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.” 12. In such circumstances, we dismiss the present appeal on the ground that the writ petition itself was not maintainable as necessary parties had not been arrayed and there was concealment of facts. 13. We direct the State to ensure that law and order is maintained and staus-quo is maintained qua possession till it is varied by any Court keeping in view the fact that Cr.WP No. 23 of 2024, is still pending before this Court. A copy of this order be kept in the connected cases. 8 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. September 25, 2025 (B.C. Negi) (hemlata) Judge.