Ajay Bajaj v. State Of Punjab And Others

CWP-11016-2026 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11016-2026 Date of Decision: 10.04.2026 Ajay Bajaj

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Sunny Kumar Singla, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vikas Arora, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to take action against respondent Nos.6 & 7 for misappropriating the property and funds of religious institute Darbar Shri Dhyanpur (for short 'Main Dham'). 2.

The petitioner is follower of Shri Bawa Lal Ji Sewa Sansthan Dhyanpur (Regd.) 5590, Street No.4-5, New Shivaji Nagar, Shri Hargobind Marg, Ludhiana (for short 'Ludhiana Dham'). Main Dham is a 670 years old Sansthan (Gaddi). It is a Brahmcharya Gaddi which is related to Ayodhya Nirmani Akhara. From time to time, Mahant appoints another Brahmcharya Mahant as his Gaddinashin (Successor). It was started by Shri Bawa Lal Ji in 1377 and thereafter, Gaddi is always succeeded by a Mahant who lives as Brahmcharya. In 2001, Gaddi was succeeded by its 15th Successor- Baba Ram Sunder Dass Ji who is also Chairperson of Ludhiana MOHIT KUMAR 2026.04.10 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CWP-11016-2026 -2Dham. Ludhiana Dham is operating under the supervision of Main Dham. Since 2001, Mahant Shri Ram Sunder Dass-respondent No. 6 has been managing day to day affairs of Dera. Petitioner claim that the position of Mahant can only be occupied by one who is Celibate which respondent No.6 is not. He got married 30 years ago and has wife-Rajni and a child. Respondent No. 6 cannot hold post of Mahant as he still is in a matrimonial relationship and has no right to be a Mahant. A criminal complaint has been filed by Rajni against respondent No.6 which is pending adjudication before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Batala. There are several evidence/proofs of respondent No.6 being married. He has no rightful claim to be a Mahant. 3.

From the perusal of record, it is evident that issue raised by petitioner is a purely civil and private dispute between the parties. As pointed out by learned State counsel, a Civil Suit is pending between the parties.

4.

In the backdrop, no order is warranted. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 10.04.2026 Mohit Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHIT KUMAR 2026.04.10 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.