Constructive res judicata and CPC principles apply to writ petitions, barring new unraised claims like superior priest office; no liberty to withdraw for fresh suit to prevent abuse of process and relitigation.

JUDGMENT :

BIPIN CHANDER NEGI, J.

1. During the pendency of the LPA now preferred, Hari Ram, the original writ petitioner had died. Vide order dated 18.8.2025 the legal heirs of the erstwhile writ petitioner had been ordered to be brought on record.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 16.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the predecessor in interest of the present appellant. The claim in the writ petition filed by the father of the appellant of being the sole Pujari in the Shri Shiv Mandir Nayas, Mahakal Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P, to the exclusion of his brothers i.e. respondents No. 5 to 7, based on custom and on a Will stated to have been executed by the late father of the predecessor in interest of the present appellant and respondents No. 5 to 7, has been held by the learned Single Judge to be not determinable in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Besides the aforesaid, no fault was found by the learned Single Judge in the minutes of the meeting dated 28.3.2024 (Annexure P-8 in CWP No. 6424 of 2024), whereby the Committee constituted in pursuance of the judgment dated 15.3.2024 passed by the Court in CWP No. 381 of 2016, recommended to continue with the system of month-wise rotation of Puja by all the stakeholders as per the orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Temple-cum-SDO Civil, Baijnath) dated 2.11.2013 and the consequent order passed thereupon on 26.6.2024 whereby the aforesaid recommendations so made were accepted.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner sought liberty to withdraw the writ petition bearing CWP No. 6424 of 2024, wherein the impugned judgment dated 16.10.2024 assailed in the present appeal had been passed, with liberty to lay a claim of the predecessor in interest of the present appellant being a Mohtamin in the temple concerned by filing a fresh petition. Liberty now being sought was tried to be justified by drawing the attention of court to the nature of office of a Mohtamin and the provisions of the HIMACHAL PRADESH HINDU PUBLIC RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT , 1984, (for the purpose of brevity hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The same has been vehemently opposed by the respondents in view of the factual matrix of the case at hand by arguing that in all previous litigations filed by the writ petitioner such a claim had never been raised, the claim now being sought to be raised was barred by limitation and the claim raised was only triable by a civil court as had been rightly held in the impugned judgment dated 16.10.2024.

5. Previously, deceased Hari Ram (original writ petitioner) had earlier preferred a writ petition bearing No. 381 of 2016. In the same, challenge had been laid to order dated 2.11.2013 passed by the Assistant Commissioner-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Shri Shiv Mandir Nayas, Mahakal Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P, whereby the work of Pujaris was redistributed on a month-wise rotation basis inter se the writ petitioner and respondents No. 5 to 7. Besides the aforesaid, order dated 20.10.2015 passed by the Commissioner Temple-cum-Deputy