Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bija Singh vs State Of Haryana & Others on 9 January, 2013
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Civil Writ Petition No. 224 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 224 of 2013
Date of Decision: 9.1.2013
Bija Singh
.....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana & others
.....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
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? RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL):
The instant petition is directed against the order dated 1.8.2012 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana thereby dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the order dated 2.5.2012 (Annexure P-8), passed by the learned Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, remanding the case back to the learned Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Thanesar, directing him to get proclamation conducted again in the village, inviting the applications for appointment to the post of Lambardar.
Shorn of the detailed and chequered history of the case, it would suffice to refer to the basic facts necessary for disposal of the present petition. Consequent upon the death of Sh. Pannu Ram, Lambardar, post of Scheduled Caste Lambardar fell vacant in village Sarai Sukhi. With a view to fill up the post of Scheduled Caste Civil Writ Petition No. 224 of 2013 2 Lambardar, proceedings were initiated. The proclamation was got conducted in the village and finally, vide order dated 29.11.2005, the learned Collector, Kurukshetra, appointed the petitioner as Lambardar.
Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Collector, respondent No.6 filed his appeal before the learned Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, which was dismissed and his revision was also dismissed by the learned Financial Commissioner. Thereafter, respondent No.6 approached this Court, by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 11505 of 2009 (Ram Sarup versus State of Haryana and others), which came to be allowed by this Court, vide order dated 16.8.2010. The matter was remanded back to the learned Financial Commissioner to pass a fresh order in view of the observations made by this Court. In compliance of the above said order passed by this Court, the learned Financial Commissioner, vide order dated 7.12.2010, set aside the order dated 11.4.2007 passed by the learned Commissioner, Ambala Division, and remanded the case back to the learned Commissioner, for passing a fresh order after hearing the parties and giving clear findings on the issues/observations made by this Court.
Thereafter, the learned Commissioner, vide his order dated 2.5.2012, found that both the candidates were not eligible for the post of Lambardar. He remanded the matter back to Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Thanesar, directing to invite fresh applications from the eligible persons, after conducting due proclamation in the concerned area.
Civil Writ Petition No. 224 of 2013 3
Dissatisfied with this order, petitioner approached the learned Financial Commissioner by way of an appeal and the same was dismissed vide order dated 1.8.2012.
Feeling aggrieved against the above said order dated 2.5.2012 passed by the learned Commissioner, Ambala Division, and also the order dated 1.8.2012 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, petitioner has approached this Court, by way of this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the learned Commissioner as well as by the learned Financial Commissioner were not sustainable in law because they have not appreciated the merits of the case, while passing the impugned orders. He further submits that no interference was warranted at the hands of the learned Commissioner and the learned Financial Commissioner in the choice of the learned Collector, appointing the petitioner as Lambardar. Learned counsel for the petitioner concluded by submitting that the impugned orders be set aside and the present petition may be allowed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is not only bereft of any merit but the same amounts to frivolous litigation as well and is also glaring misuse of the process of law. Thus, the instant petition is Civil Writ Petition No. 224 of 2013 4 liable to be dismissed with costs. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
Contention raised by the learned counsel that the learned Commissioner and the learned Financial Commissioner ought not to have interfered in the choice of the learned Collector, appointing the petitioner as Lambardar, is misconceived on the face of it, for the simple but strong reason that the same had been set aside by this Court also, while allowing CWP No. 11505 of 2009 filed by respondent No.6, wherein the present petitioner was respondent No.5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court made the following observations:-
"I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The choice of the Collector, upheld by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, should generally be affirmed. Where, however, the order discloses an illegal, arbitrary or perverse exercise of power, the choice of the Collector must necessarily be set aside.
Respondent No. 5 has made a positive statement that he owns property worth Rs. 5.00 lacs. On the other hand, the petitioner has appended Annexure P-4, a list of BPL families of village Sarai Sukhi, where respondent No. 5's name is recorded at Sr. No.
144. The BPL entry casts a serious doubt in the Civil Writ Petition No. 224 of 2013 5 statement made by respondent No. 5, his honesty and, therefore, his suitability to be appointed as a Lambardar. This plea was raised before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, but neither officer chose to deal, much less advert to it.
In this view of the matter, I have no option but to allow the writ petition, set aside the order dated 26.11.2008, passed by the Financial Commissioner and direct a fresh adjudication of the controversy. Ordered accordingly.
Parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner on 21.9.2010, who shall decide the revision, within three months."
In compliance of the above said order passed by this Court, the learned Financial Commissioner, vide order dated 7.12.2010, remanded the matter back to the learned Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, for passing a fresh order after hearing the parties and also for giving findings on the issues/observations made by this Court. Thereafter, the learned Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, passed his self contained and speaking order observing that both the candidates were not eligible for the post of Lambardar.
Consequently, the learned Commissioner remanded the case back to the learned Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Thanesar, directing him to initiate de novo proceedings, for filling up the post of Civil Writ Petition No. 224 of 2013 6 Lambardar, after conducting proclamation in the concerned area for inviting applications from the eligible persons. The relevant observations made by the learned Commissioner, Ambala Division, read as under:-
"Therefore, the character of appellant is not believable for the post of Lambardar and he is unable candidate for the post of Lambardar. In my opinion, appellant and respondent both candidates are not able for the post of Lambardar and in this case it will be appropriate to make appointment for the post of Lambardar. After inviting applications of able persons after conducting Munadi again in concerned area. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 29.11.2005 of Collector is set aside and this case is remanded to the court of Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Thanesar with directions that he will proceed further proceeding as per rules after conducting Munadi again in concerned area for appointing new Lambardar in place of Punnu Ram (deceased Lambardar) in village Sarai Sukhi." Feeling aggrieved against the above said order, the petitioner approached the learned Financial Commissioner, who rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 1.8.2012, observing as under:-
Civil Writ Petition No. 224 of 2013 7
"I have gone through the record of the case that the order of the Hon'ble High Court is very clear as it raises a doubt on the BPL status of the petitioner and casts a serious doubt on the honesty and suitability of the petitioners' appointment as a Lambardar. Since the Financial Commissioner and the Commissioner in earlier order had not taken into these facts account. Hon'ble High Court ordered a fresh adjudication at this controversial fact. The Commissioner, Ambala Division, remanded the case for giving clear finding that the petitioner was very well aware of the BPL status in spite of the fact that he was not eligible and had accepted the BPL Card and also utilized to draw ration and therefore, this casts a serious doubt on his conduct and character. Therefore, he has also stated that he is not fit candidate for appointment as Lambardar. Similarly, he has held that the respondent is also not a fit candidate for the post of Lambardar. The conduct and character of the candidate is the very important criteria for appointing him on the post of Lambardar. In view of the facts given in the record and arguments on the various orders, I feel that Civil Writ Petition No. 224 of 2013 8 there is no ground to interfere in the order of the Commissioner. Hence the appeal is dismissed in limni."
A combined reading of the above said orders would show that integrity of the petitioner was not above board as held by this Court, vide above said order dated 16.8.2010. It has gone undisputed on record that name of the petitioner was at serial No. 144 in the list of Below Poverty Line card holders. However, when the proceedings were initiated for filling up the post of Harijan Lambardar, petitioner made a positive statement that he owns property worth ` 5 lacs. This factual aspect of the matter is further supported by another document which is an official communication dated 27.10.2009, issued by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, while removing the name of the family of the petitioner from the BPL list. This communication reads, as under:-
Subject: Regarding cutting the name from BPL List.
That on the basis of complaint/information, after got inspection by this office through its officer/employee under mentioned application was not found able for the list of BPL. Therefore, the name of this family has been removed from the BPL List by this officer. Thus, you inform this office after rejecting the pink/yellow ration card which ever was made of BPL Class of this under mentioned.
Civil Writ Petition No. 224 of 2013 9
Sr. No. Father/Husb Name of the Name of BPL Sr. No. Caste
and Name Block Village
1 Bija Singh Thanesar Sarai Sukhi 144 Scheduled
Lambardar Caste.
In view of the above said factual aspect of the matter, the only material issue that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the concerned revenue authorities are under legal obligation to consider the candidature of a person, for the post of Lambardar, despite the fact that his honesty was under a serious doubt. Keeping in view the fact situation of the present case, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned Commissioner as well as learned Financial Commissioner have committed no error of law, while passing the impugned orders. I say so because having been found suffering from doubtful integrity, petitioner was not entitled even for consideration for the post of Lambardar, much less appointment thereto.
The rule that choice of Collector in appointment of Lambardar should not be interfered with, is not an absolute rule. Although choice of learned Collector should not be interfered with lightly but if the order is found to be suffering from patent illegality and perversity, the learned Commissioner should not hesitate to interfere in the choice of learned Collector.
In the present case, once the petitioner has accepted the specific and categoric finding recorded by this Court about his doubtful integrity because of abovesaid strong reason, while not challenging the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same has become final, the instant petition is nothing but a blatant Civil Writ Petition No. 224 of 2013 10 misuse of the process of law. The petitioner, despite knowing fully well that the findings recorded by this Court in no uncertain terms, is staring in the face, the present petition amounts to glaring abuse of the process of law.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, it is unhesitatingly held that the present petition is bereft of any merit and without any substance. This Court feels no hesitation to hold that the present one is a frivolous litigation which amounts to clear abuse of the process of law.
No case for interference has been made out. In view of the above, the instant petition is ordered to be dismissed with costs, which are quantified at `10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), to be deposited by the petitioner with Haryana State Legal Services Authority within a period of two months from today, failing which the Haryana State Legal Services Authority shall be entitled to recover the amount of costs from the petitioner, in accordance with law.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 9.1.2013 AK Sharma