IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14092 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 05, 2011 Mohinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Divisional Commissiner, Patiala Division, Patiala & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mrs.Gurnam Kaur Turka, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Respondent No.3 has been appointed as a Lambardar by the Collector. Appeal filed against the same by the petitioner was rejected by the Commissioner. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition to impugn the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioners. The only submission advanced before me is that the respondent, who has been appointed as Lambardar, is not ordinarily residing in the village and is resident of Patiala. This alone, in my view, would not be sufficient to ignore the other merits possessed by respondent No.3, which have been taken into consideration while appointing him as Lambardar. It has consistently been held that as a general rule, choice of Collector is final and except where the order discloses the lack of jurisdiction or an error of fact, so as to render his order arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, no interference would be Civil Writ Petition No.14092 of 2011 :2: called for. See Ujagar Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 28 and Gurdial Singh Versus Iqbal Singh, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 283. Accordingly, the choice of the Collector is to be treated as final. No submission is made to show lack of jurisdiction or error of fact or arbitrariness, which would call for interference in the choice exercised by the Collector. No case for interference, therefore, is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. August 05, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE