HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. : 320 of 2005. Decided on: 27.12.2007. Siri Krishan and others ……… Petitioners. Versus The Commissioner, Temple Chintpurni and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate. For respondents No.1 & 2: Mr.M.S. Chandel, Advocate General, with Mr.R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. Per V.K. Ahuja, J: By the present writ, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by respondent No.1 Commissioner, Temple Chintpurni, in regard to distribution of the shares of offerings at the Temple. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as alleged by the petitioners, are that in 1984, Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowment Act came into force and Chintpurni Temple was also mentioned in the schedule of the Act at Sl.No.9. The affairs of the Temple are being maintained by respondent No.1 i.e. Commissioner since 1987 and all the offerings are counted for and utilized for the betterment of the Temple. The petitioners also alleged about the filing of a _________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? civil suit and the directions issued in that regard and the offerings were being shared by Pujaris’ families. An advertisement was issued by respondent No.4 asking the petitioners and others of all toles to present their list of shares according to their share. The offerings were being shared by the petitioners and others. In the year 2002, respondent No.3 presented Will of one Ram Rakhi executed in 1975 and demanded her share in temple offerings. According to the Will, she had willed her share of income from the offerings from Temple in favour of Shri Hari Krishan in the year 1974. Respondent No.1 directed to grant the share of Ram Rakhi to respondent No.3 and consequently the share of the petitioners was decreased. The petitioners had challenged the right of Smt.Ram Rakhi to claim the share as well as that of respondent No.3 to claim the share on the basis of the Will. It is clear from the allegations made by the petitioners that the dispute in question is in the nature of civil case and it cannot be decided by this Court by exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The dispute in question is such in which the facts are required to be proved including the right of Smt. Ram Rakhi to offerings as well as the right of her LRs to claim her share on the basis of a Will and the question of validity of the Will has also to be determined. All these questions of fact can be decided only by the civil court and as such the present writ petition filed by the petitioners does not lie and is liable to be dismissed which is dismissed accordingly. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the civil court for redressal of their grievances in accordance with law. In view of the final disposal of the main petition, all the pending applications shall also stand disposed of. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (V.K. Ahuja), December 27, 2007. (TILAK) Judge.