IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1897 of 2007-H Date of decision : December 7, 2011 Banti Giri Cheli Shri Lal Giri Mahant Vyas Goofa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. …Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through Principal Secretary (LAC) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. 2. Director, Language, Art & Culture, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-9. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. …Respondents. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by Notification dated 6th March, 2007, Annexure P-2, whereby a Temple, known as Mahant Ved Vyas Goofa, Bilaspur, has been taken over, under Section 29(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984. Petitioner’s case is that she is Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… the Mahant of the Temple and has the right to worship in the Temple. It is also her case that the Temple had been taken over, without affording any opportunity of being heard to her. Also, it is stated that there is no income from the Temple and, therefore, there is hardly any need for taking over the same. So, the petitioner has sought the quashing of the aforesaid Notification Annexure P-2. 3. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that the Temple is of historical importance and religious sentiments of the people of the area are attached with the Temple. It is also alleged that the petitioner had not been spending even a penny on the upkeep and maintenance of the Temple and it is for this reason that it has been taken over. It is denied that the petitioner is the Mahant of the Temple. It is alleged that she is only Wahe-Tamam. 4. During the pendency of the matter, petitioner filed an application, alleging that since no Trust had been created by the respondents, for the management of the Temple, despite issuance of Notification Annexure P-2 and two more Temples, which too had been taken over, had been denotified, Temple, in question, also needed to be denotified. 5. Respondents have filed counter-affidavit, alleging that Trust had not been created, because of the …3… pendency of the present writ petition. So far as petitioner’s plea that she has the right to worship in the Temple, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that she may continue to worship and take care of the Temple. 6. In view of what is stated in the counter- affidavit, as also the fact that the petitioner had not been spending any money on the maintenance and upkeep of the Temple, present petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner may continue to worship and take care of the Temple, till the Trust is constituted. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. December 7, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J