Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bagh Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 August, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16126 OF 2010 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 03, 2012
Bagh Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana 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. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
Mr. L. N. Verma, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Applications were invited for appointing a Lambardar of Village Dadu, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa. Four persons, including the petitioner and respondent No.4, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16126 OF 2010 :{ 2 }:
submitted their applications. The case was processed by the revenue officials and was put up to the Deputy Commissioner, who rejected all the candidates as he did not find any person suitable for appointment. Respondent No.4, who was ultimately appointed by the Commissioner, was not found suitable by the Collector on the ground that he was accused of electricity theft, for which he has paid a fine of `12,700/-. One candidate was illiterate and other one was 3rd standard pass and so the Collector rejected the claim of all the applicants on 23.5.2006.
Aggrieved against the order passed by the Collector, the petitioner and respondent No.4 filed separate appeals before the Commissioner. The Commissioner set- aside the order passed by the Collector and remanded the case to him with a direction to pass an order again after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties. What weighed with the Collector to set-aside this order was another order passed by the same Collector, where educational qualifications were ignored by the Collector whereas in the present case the claim of one of the applicant was rejected only on the ground that he was 3rd Class pass.
When the matter went before the Collector again, he considered the same in the light of remand order but he CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16126 OF 2010 :{ 3 }:
still decided to uphold his earlier order, finding none of the candidate under consideration to be suitable for appointed as Lambardar. Respondent No.4 was ignored again on the ground that he was accused of electricity theft and for unauthorised use of panchayat land.
Kaur Singh another candidate under consideration was ignored as he had obtained a pension in a wrong manner. Darshan Singh was illiterate and so was ignored. Bagh Singh, petitioner, was found third standard pass and so the Collector did not consider it proper to appoint him as well.
The petitioner as well as respondent No.4 thereafter again went in appeal against the order passed by the Collector, who this time differed with the Collector and appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village. The petitioner filed a revision against this order before the Financial Commissioner, who has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner. The petitioner accordingly has filed the present writ petition to impugn the order passed by the Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner.
Notice of motion was issued and replies have been filed by official respondents as well as respondent No.4. The official respondents rightly have filed reply just making mention to factual background. In his reply, respondent No.4 has seriously contested the case and has raised number of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16126 OF 2010 :{ 4 }:
preliminary objections. During the course of arguments, counsel for respondent No.4 pressed these preliminary objections with vehemence and accordingly pleaded that no case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out.
In these preliminary objections, respondent No.4 has mainly made an attempt to find fault with the petitioner on the ground that he has furnished misleading and false information on number of aspects. This relates to his deposit of sum in the small saving schemes, which was found to be `15,000/- instead of `50,000/- as claimed. The claim of the petitioner in regard to 15 family planning cases was also termed as false and baseless. Reference is made to the order passed by the Collector, where it is noticed that he had motivated 10 family planning cases. Respondent No.4 has further highlighted the fact that allegation of unauthorised occupation of land by the said respondent was never made an issue before the Collector or other authorities and has been raised for the first time before this Court. It is stated that the petitioner has been changing stands and making false claims and hence, he has told lies with malafide intentions to strengthen his case.
Besides, respondent No.4 has also contested the allegations made against him. Respondent No.4 would urge that allegation of electricity theft was thoroughly examined CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16126 OF 2010 :{ 5 }:
by the Commissioner and it was held that he was not held guilty of any offence and so this fact would not render him unfit for appointment as Lambardar. As per the counsel, this fact was also considered by the Financial Commissioner but he also found it to be inconsequential. Respondent No.4 has challenged the plea of the petitioner that the petitioner is more meritorious and in this regard has made reference to the comparative merit as well.
I have heard counsel for the parties at length. The counsel for the petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.4 primarily on four counts. He would first contend that responsibility and duty to appoint village Lambardar is that of Collector and in this case Collector did not find anyone fit for appointment and rejected the claim of all applicants. The Commissioner, thus, is alleged to have usurped the powers of Collector by directing appointment of respondent No.4 as village Lambardar. As per counsel for the petitioner, this appointment can not be sustained on this simple ground as the choice of Collector has been given complete go-bye without finding this to be arbitrary or capricious in any manner. The counsel continues and would then press the allegation of electricity theft against respondent No.4, which has been illegally ignored to appoint him. Counsel would plead that this would render respondent No.4 unfit for CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16126 OF 2010 :{ 6 }:
appointment as Lambardar. In addition, the counsel has also urged that respondent No.4 is in unauthorised possession of Panchayat land. Lastly, the counsel will urge that respondent No.4 has purchased land, which was under valued for the purpose of stamp duty and hence, was not a fit person for such an appointment.
Counsel for respondent No.4, who has mainly concentrated in pointing out to the preliminary objections raised in his reply, was specifically asked to respond to the submissions made on behalf of counsel for the petitioner. He then rebutted all the allegations with some amount of vehemence. As per the counsel, it was not a case of electricity theft against him but he was only asked to deposit this amount on 14.10.2005, for which there was no FIR lodged nor he was declared at fault by any Court. While responding to the submission that primarily it was the duty of the Collector to appoint Lambardar, the counsel would respond by saying that the Commissioner had first remanded the case, when the Collector adamantly struck to his stand and in such circumstances, the Commissioner was justified in making appointment of respondent No.4. So far as the plea of unauthorised possession is concerned, the counsel would contend that this issue is being raised for the first time before this Court and so would not require consideration, which as per him is otherwise also falsely CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16126 OF 2010 :{ 7 }:
urged.
It can not be a matter of serious dispute that the responsibility to appoint a Lambardar primarily is that of the Collector. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in large number of cases have gone on to observe that the choice of Collector is material in appointment of Lambardar, as he is the one who is take work from Lambardar. Accordingly, it has been viewed by various Courts that the choice exercised by the Collector should not be interfered with, unless it is found to be arbitrary, capricious or suffering for want of some jurisdiction. Reference in this regard can be made to Ujagar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 28. No doubt the right of appeal is provided by the statute but this right of appeal is to be appreciated in the background of the law laid down by various Courts. Once the Collector had considered the claim of all the applicants and found none of them to be suitable as per the detailed reasons, recorded in his order, obviously he has exercised his choice given to him under law and had so found all the applicants to be unfit for appointment. The Commissioner could have legally interfere with this choice of the Collector if he found that the same is arbitrary in any manner or suffered from some such wise for which he could legally interfere with the same. There is no such finding either recorded by the Commissioner or by the Financial Commissioner. They have primarily interfered with CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16126 OF 2010 :{ 8 }:
the choice of the Collector on their own appreciation of the facts, which were pleaded and under consideration. If the Collector had chosen not to consider respondent No.4 as a fit for appointment on the ground that he was fined a sum of `12,700/- on the ground that his electric meter was found tampered with, this view can not in any manner be termed as arbitrary or capricious. In their appreciation, the Commissioner may view it differently as not carrying any stigma and the Financial Commissioner may find it to be inconsequential but this was a relevant consideration, which ought to have been weighed and was so considered by the Collector. If he found such a person to be unfit for appointment, the view certainly can not be faulted on any legal basis. May be, that the Collector had earlier considered and appointed someone, who did not fulfill the requisite educational qualification but that does not mean that he will always be called upon to follow the same view and would appoint the person, who are illiterate or who are are not fulfilling the standard of educational qualification, which is laid down, may be as preferred qualification. I, thus, do not find any arbitrariness in the view formed by the Collector. The Commissioner and Financial Commissioner were not justified in ignoring the choice and the view expressed by the Collector while choosing to appoint/uphold the appointment of respondent No.4.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16126 OF 2010 :{ 9 }:
The orders passed by the Financial Commissioner as well as Commissioner are set-aside. The order passed by the Collector is restored. The process for appointment of village Lambardar may now be started afresh and a suitable person be appointed as Lambardar of the village.
The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
August 03, 2012 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE