CWP No.19925 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.19925 of 2008 Date of Decision: 23.3.2010 Panjaba Ram .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Vivek Khatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Addl.A.G. Haryana for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr. Bhag Singh, 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 11.4.2008 and 24.9.2008, passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The post of Lambardar of Village Chuharpur, Tehsil and Distt. Jind, fell vacant on account of the demise of the Lambardar. Consequently, applications were invited from eligible candidates. After considering the merits of all eligible candidates, the Collector appointed the petitioner. The claim of Molhar Singh @ Man Singh, respondent no.4 was rejected on the ground that he is a permanent resident of Bassi Pathana, is running a barber shop and has defaulted in the payment of a bank loan. Aggrieved by this order, respondent no.4 filed an appeal. The Commissioner, Hisar Division, CWP No.19925 of 2008 2 Hisar, accepted the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Collector and directed the appointment of respondent no.4. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision, which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 24.9.2008. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointing authority of a Lambardar is the Collector. The choice of a Collector is final and cannot be interfered in appeal or revision, except where it is arbitrary, perverse or preposterous. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner have however, interfered with the discretion exercised by the Collector and passed arbitrary and cryptic orders without assigning any reasons. It is further submitted that as respondent no.4 is a permanent resident of Bassi Pathana and has defaulted in the payment of a loan, he cannot be appointed as the Lambardar. Reliance for these arguments is placed upon judgements in Ujagar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 28, Dalip Singh son of Hakam Singh Vs. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I),Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and another, 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 359, Om Parkash V. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 690 and Balwant Singh V. State of Haryana and others, 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 32, Counsel for respondent no.4, on the other hand, submits that though the choice of the Collector is final, it can be set aside, where it discloses an arbitrary exercise of discretion, and disregard of basic facts. The Commissioner found, as a matter of fact that the allegations against respondent no.4 that he is not a resident of the revenue estate and is a defaulter are factually incorrect, as his ration card, residence proof, entry in the voters list and the certificate issued by the mini bank clearly negate CWP No.19925 of 2008 3 these allegations. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The principle that governs the selection of a Lambardar, reiterated in the precedents referred to by counsel for the petitioner is that the choice of the Collector is final, except where his choice discloses an arbitrary, perverse, palpably preposterous exercise of discretion in ignorance or disregard to the law or disregard of material facts. Where the choice of the Collector suffers from any of these infirmities the appellate and revisional authorities would be justified in interfering. A perusal of the order passed by the Collector discloses an abject failure on his part to consider the ration card, the voter identity card, the police report and the fact that a certificate has been issued by the mini bank that respondent no.4 is no longer a defaulter. The Collector's finding was arbitrary and perverse, as it was recorded by disregarding this material. The Financial Commissioner was bound to rectify this error and cannot be said to have exceeded his jurisdiction. In view of what has been stated herein above, as the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of law or of jurisdiction, the present petition is dismissed. 23.3.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE