IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.863 of 1994 Decided on : November 7, 2008 Sita Ram and others …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Per Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Writ petitioners have challenged Office Order dated 3rd March, 1994, Annexure PH, issued by the Temple Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, thereby constituting a committee for the management of Shri Chamunda Nadikeshwar Temple, Chamunda, which came under the purview of The Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984, for the first time on 24th February, 1994, by virtue of notification dated 24th February, 1994, Annexure PF, issued by the State Government, in exercise of the power, under Section 29(1) of the aforesaid Act. Prior to the issuance of the impugned Office Order, Annexure PH, Shri Chamunda Nandikeshwar Temple, Chamunda, was a registered society and a committee had been constituted, in accordance Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… with the by-laws of the society. On account of the issuance of notification, Annexure PF, on 24th February, 1994, the temple ceased to be a society and came within the purview of the provisions of the aforesaid Act. Now, once the temple came within the purview of the aforesaid Act, its management committee was required to be constituted, under Section 18 of the said Act. That was constituted, vide impugned order dated 3rd March, 1994, Annexure PH. 2. Petitioners have not challenged the notification, dated 24th February, 1994, of the Government, bringing the temple within the purview of The Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1984 and including it in Schedule-1 of the Act. Unless that notification, bringing the temple within the purview of the Act, is challenged, Office Order, Annexure PH, cannot be said to be invalid, because by this Office Order the committee for the management of the Temple was constituted, within the meaning of the aforesaid Act, for the first time. Earlier committee cannot be said to have been superseded by this Office Order, because when the temple came within the purview of the Act, by virtue of notification dated 24th February, 1994, Annexure PF, the said earlier management committee automatically ceased to exist. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ), J. November 7, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.