CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16258 OF 2011 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 02, 2011
Mahavir Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
The Financial Commissioner (Appeal-II), Punjab, Chandigarh and
others
....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. G. C. Rattan, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Lambardar Gurbax Singh of village Masitpal Kot, Tehsil Dasuya,
District Hoshiarpur, died and process was initiated to fill up the
vacancy of Lambardar. In response to proclamation, 19 persons
applied for appointment of Lambardar. Two persons withdrew in
favour of Didar Singh; five persons withdrew in favour of Jit Singh
son of Joginder Singh. Naib Tehsildar considered the claim of
remaining candidates and recommended the name of Mahavir Singh
son of Tarlochan Singh. Tehsildar agreed with this recommendation
and forwarded the case to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who also
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16258 OF 2011 :{ 2 }:
recommended the name of Mahavir Singh. Accordingly, candidature
of Darshan Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Mahavir Singh, Parminder
Singh, Jit Singh and Didar Singh was considered. Jit Singh also
withdrew his application in favour of Darshan Singh. The Collector
after considering the case of all the candidates had referred the case
back to Sub Divisional Magistrate as they had made allegations
against each other. Collector in fact wanted the Sub Divisional
Magistrate to verify these allegations. Sub Divisional Magistrate
submitted his report on 26.9.2007. As per the report, Mahavir Singh
did not have any land in Patti Sania and he had 20 kanals 2 marlas
land in Patti Rajput. Parminder Singh had 4 kanals 2 marlas land in
Patti Sania and 41 kanals 19 marlas land in Patti Rajputan. Similarly
Didar Singh had 4 kanals 16 marlas land in Patti Sania and 16 kanals
14 marlas of land in Patti Rajputan. Darshan Singh had 21 kanals 17
marlas land in Patti Sania and 4 kanals 9 marlas of land in Patti
Rajputan. The case was accordingly submitted to the Collector, who
then considered the comparative merits of the candidates. He found
that Mahavir Singh was 38 years of age and was Higher Secondary
pass. He owned land in Patti Rajputan but was found to be running a
marriage palace at Tanda. The Collector accordingly observed that
he will not be easily available to the villagers. It was also noticed that
he had got his name as well as name of his wife entered in the voter
list in Ward No.3 of Balachaur. It was noticed that FIR had been
registered against Parminder Singh under Sections 380 and 454 IPC.
It is noticed that Didar Singh had been fined `12000/- for electricity
theft. In this background, Darshan Singh, who was higher secondary
pass and was having 21 kanals 12 marlas land and was residing in
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16258 OF 2011 :{ 3 }:
the Village was found better placed than other candidates and
accordingly was appointed as Lambardar of the village. Darshan
Singh had retired as Panchayat Officer and had working knowledge
of the post. In fact he had donated 25 benches to the Government
School and `5,000/- to the Public Khalsa College. He had also
constructed a rain shed at the Bus Stop and had donated land for
Langar Hall of Gurudwara. He had also donated `1,10,000/- for
construction of building of Government High School. As per record,
he used to donate money for victims of natural calamities and had
been motivating the N.R.Is for village development. The appointment
of respondent Darshan Singh was upheld by the Commissioner as
well as by the Financial Commissioner, which is now challenged by
the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner did not consider the
points raised by the petitioner. The counsel submits that respondent-
Darshan Singh, who was appointed, is not from Patti and the
petitioner was wrongly ignored on the ground that he was running
Marriage Palace, which he had closed voluntarily on 23.1.2006.
Counsel has also disputed the observation that the name of his wife
exists in the voter list as the same does not exist in the voter list
issued in the year 2005. The fact that the petitioner was running a
Marriage Palace is not denied. Similarly, the name of the wife of the
petitioner had appeared in the voters list at Balachaur is also
factually correct, though he may have now got the name removed.
Name of the father of Mahavir Singh is not entered in the ration card
at Village Masitpal Kot and he had got a separate ration card made
at Tanda who is living with Mahavir Singh. The fact that the petitioner
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16258 OF 2011 :{ 4 }:
had closed the Marriage Palace at Tanda, apparently was not
brought to the notice of the Collector at the time of consideration for
appointment as Lambardar. Besides, the Collector has noticed the
merits in favour of respondent No.4 and the reasons for which he
found him more suitable for appointment. None of those have been
disputed before me in any manner by the counsel for the petitioner.
The counsel has not urged any ground to say that the order of the
Collector suffers from any perversity or want of jurisdiction to call for
interference by this Court. Respondent No.4 has rightly been found
more meritorious. There is no reason or a cause made out for
interfering in the choice exercised by the Collector, which is just, fair
and reasonable and does not suffer from any want of jurisdiction or
perversity, requiring any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.
September 02, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE