CWP No.7867 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.7867 of 2007 Date of Decision: 1.9.2010 Rana Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation),Punjab and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab, for respondents no.1 to 3. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Advocate for respondent no.4. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 8.12.2006, 13.1.2005 and 19.9.2003, passed by the Financial Commissioner, (Cooperation), Punjab, Chandigarh, the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Nawanshahar. The petitioner, respondent no.4 and others applied for selection to the post of Lambardar of villlage Mallo Mazara, Tehsil and Distt. Nawanshahar. After considering the merits of the candidates, the Collector directed the appointment of respondent no.4, as the Lambardar. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Commissioner. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a revision, which was also CWP No.7867 of 2007 2 dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the choice of the Collector, as affirmed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner is perverse, arbitrary, contrary to well established principles that govern the selection of a Lambardar and should, therefore, be set aside. The petitioner is a much better candidate, as he scores over respondent no.4 in all respects, whether in property, influence, social work and all other relevant factors. It is argued that though the choice of the Collector is final, but where the discretion exercised by the Collector reveals a failure to consider relevant material or a perverse consideration of the material on record, the appellate and revisional authority would be justified in reversing such a finding. The Collector, the appellate and revisional authority have failed to record any finding, why the petitioner's candidature was rejected. The petitioner is the choice of the Gram Panchayat and the majority of the residents. The petitioner was instrumental in getting a separate Hadbast number for the village and, therefore, a separate Lambardar. The petitioner is involved in a large number of social activities. Counsel for the private respondent, on the other hand, submits that the choice of the Collector is final, till such time as it discloses a perverse or arbitrary exercise of discretion. The mere fact that the petitioner may own more property or has the support of the Gram Panchayat is no ground to interfere with the choice of the Collector, particularly, where it has been affirmed by the appellate and revisional forum. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and express my inability to accede to the arguments addressed by counsel for the petitioner. While considering the merits of the parties, the Collector recorded a detailed order, CWP No.7867 of 2007 3 considering all aspects and appointed respondent no.4. The choice of the Collector cannot be perverse merely because the petitioner is better in a large number of aspects, particularly with respect to property. In order to interfere with the choice of the Collector, it must be established that the exercise of discretion is arbitrary, perverse or preposterous. The question is not whether the petitioner steals a march over respondent no.4 in some aspects or all aspects, but whether he is more suitable to be appointed as the Lambardar. If more property and money were to be a determining factor, a rich man would always prevail. The suitability of a candidate has to be assessed on his overall ability to perform the duties of a Lambardar. The mere fact that he may score over respondent no.4 in certain aspects, would not render the choice of the Collector arbitrary or perverse. The argument that respondent no.4 is in unauthorised occupation of government land, cannot be accepted, as the suit filed by respondent no.4 and his father has been decreed in their favour and an appeal is pending in the High Court. The submission that the petitioner's name has been recommended by the Gram Panchayat and his services to the village have been lauded, have been considered by the Collector and are, therefore, irrelevant. In view of what has been stated herein above, as the order passed by the Collector is not perverse, arbitrary or preposterous, the writ petition is dismissed. 1.9.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE