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