Punjab-Haryana High Court
Talwinder Singh vs Financial Commissioner ... on 20 April, 2012
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
L.P.A. No. 1603 of 2011 ( O&M )
DATE OF DECISION : 20.04.2012
Talwinder Singh
.... APPELLANT
Versus
Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab, Chandigarh and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present: Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Ms. Ritu Punj, Addl. A.G., Punjab,
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
***
SATISH KUMAR MTTAL, J.
This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 23.5.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 5047 of 2010) filed by appellant Talwinder Singh, challenging the orders dated 26.4.2007 and 9.10.2009 (Annexures P-3 and P-6), passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar; and the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh, respectively, was dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through LPA No. 1603 of 2011 ( O&M ) -2- the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
In the present appeal, the appointment of respondent No.4 Paramjit Singh as Lambardar of village Chachoki, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala, has been questioned by the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that vide order dated 17.10.2006 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Collector, Kapurthala, he was appointed as Lambardar of the village. However, the Commissioner, without any justification and reason, and without properly appreciating the fact that the appellant was more suitable person to be appointed as Lambardar of the village, had set aside the said order and appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village. It is the further case of the appellant that the Financial Commissioner as well as the learned Single Judge have affirmed the order of the Commissioner, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and by ignoring the principle of law that normally in the matter of appointment of Lambardar of a village, the choice of the Collector should not be interfered by the Commissioner or the Financial Commissioner.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Commissioner, the Financial Commissioner and the learned Single Judge have ignored the fact that at one point of time, respondent No.4 had been involved in a criminal case, though he was acquitted in the said case, but still the revenue authorities should not have given preference to him, when LPA No. 1603 of 2011 ( O&M ) -3- the person of clear image was available.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order as well as orders of the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is the admitted position that respondent No.4 is younger in age and is more qualified than the appellant. The Commissioner, while taking into consideration the comparative merits of the appellant and respondent No.4, came to the conclusion that respondent No.4 was younger in age, economically sound, better educated and was having better social status, but these facts were not properly appreciated by the Collector. Therefore, the order of the Collector was set aside and respondent No.4 was appointed as Lambardar of the village. The order of the Commissioner was upheld by the Financial Commissioner and further by the learned Single Judge. If the comparative merits of both the candidates are considered, then respondent No.4 is a better candidate, therefore, the learned Single Judge, in our view, rightly declined to interfere in the orders of the revenue authorities, appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that at one point of time, respondent No.4 was involved in a criminal case, therefore, he should not have been appointed as Lambardar of the village, cannot be accepted. It is admitted position that in the said criminal case registered under Sections 323, 324, 325, 452, 148, 149 IPC, LPA No. 1603 of 2011 ( O&M ) -4- respondent No.4 was acquitted much prior to the date of inviting applications. Therefore, the registration of the said criminal case against respondent No.4 could not have been taken into consideration, particularly when the offences in that case did not relate to moral turpitude. Thus, the impugned order, passed by the learned Single Judge, does not require any interference in this appeal.
Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
April 20, 2012 ( T.P.S. MANN )
ndj JUDGE