Harninder Singh vs Financial Commissioner … on 2 February, 2009

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15826 OF 2007                              :{ 1 }:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                 CHANDIGARH


                    DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 02, 2009



             Harninder Singh

                                                             .....Petitioner

                           VERSUS

             Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab, Chandigarh
             and another

                                                              ....Respondents



CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?



PRESENT:             Mr. M. L. Saini, Advocate,
                     for the petitioner.

                    Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab,
                    for respondent No.1.

                    Mr. K. S. Grewal, Advocate,
                    for respondent No.2.

                           ****

RANJIT SINGH, J.

The petitioner and respondent No.2 were the candidates

for appointment as Lambardar of village Hansali. After considering

the merits of respective candidates, Collector appointed respondent

No.2 as Lambardar. This order was challenged by the petitioner

before Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. The appeal was

accepted and the case was remanded back to Collector for
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15826 OF 2007 :{ 2 }:

reconsidering the merit of the petitioner and respondent No.2. This

order was then impugned by respondent No.2 by filing a revision

before Financial Commissioner, who accepted the same and set-

aside the order passed by the Commissioner. That is how the

petitioner is now before this Court through the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, by making reference to

the qualification of petitioner as well as respondent No.2 as noticed

by the Collector, made an attempt to show that the petitioner is more

meritorious and hence, should have been appointed by the Collector

as Lambardar of the village. The Commissioner, while interfering with

the order passed by the Collector, took a view that the petitioner was

more meritorious. Commissioner also noticed that the candidature of

the petitioner was primarily rejected on the ground that he was found

to be in illegal possession of Panchayat land, as per the order

passed on 21.3.1996. The Commissioner has ignored this order

simply on the ground that the petitioner was allowed to contest the

Panchayat election and he remained Sarpanch of the Village from

June 1998 to June 2003. Finding this to be contradictory, he has

remanded the case for reconsideration to the Collector. The Financial

Commissioner has rightly interfered with this order of remand by

noticing that the petitioner was in illegal possession of the Panchayat

land in the year 1995-96 and submission that this aspect was to be

seen at the time of application i.e. in April 2005, would not make

much difference. If a person has been in illegal possession of

Panchayat land, then this fact would certainly go against him for

appointment as Lambardar. The order passed by Collector did not

suffer from any infirmity or perversity to call for interference by the
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15826 OF 2007 :{ 3 }:

Commissioner and he was not justified in remanding the case back

to the Collector. Financial Commissioner, while accepting the

revision has observed that the Collector had preferred a person who

was free from stigma and as such, Commissioner was not justified in

interfering with the said order. The view taken by the Financial

Commissioner is legal and otherwise justified and as such, would not

call for any interference.

Dismissed.

February 02, 2009                            ( RANJIT SINGH )
khurmi                                           JUDGE