IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5133 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 09, 2011 Manjit Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harbhajan Singh Sran, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Paramvir Singh Sikand, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Respondent No.6 exparte. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 27.9.2006 (Annexure P-8) passed by Collector, Ambala, whereby respondent No.5, Jit Singh son of Arjun CWP No.5133 of 2008 [2] Singh, has been appointed as Lambardar for village Batrohan, Tehsil & District Ambala. 2. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, which has been dismissed vide other order under challenge viz. 18.4.2007 (Annexure P-10). Petitioner carried a revision which has been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide Order dated 7.1.2008 (Annexure P-13) in limine without giving notice to respondent No.5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his short contention, contends that it stands established on record by way of documentary evidence that while claiming appointment to the post of Lambardar vide affidavit, Annexure P-15, respondent No.5, Jit Singh, gave out his age as 55 years and his date of birth as 14.6.1950. It is also on the record of the officials that the said respondent claimed old age pension in the year 2003-04 while claiming his age to be 63 years. 4. Learned counsel further contends that respondent No.5 is involved in a criminal case and is facing trial. It has been argued that these were important and relevant circumstances to be considered by the authorities which, however, have been ignored. CWP No.5133 of 2008 [3] 5. Learned counsel has referred to Order dated 18.4.2007 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Commissioner, wherefrom it has been pointed out from Para 4 that the issue of concealing material fact in regard to the age was brought out. There is no adjudication in terms of law as declared by this Court that it is a material fact viz. 2000(4) RCR (Civil) 388, Man Singh vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, wherein it has been held that character has to be stated as bad if deliberate attempt has been made to wrongly give the age. 6. Learned counsel further contends that Financial Commissioner ought to have taken into account all the facts pleaded in the revision petition. The revision petition of the petitioner, however, has been dismissed in limine without even issuance of notice. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has pointed out that an order of removal of the respondent was passed by Collector on account of his giving wrong age and involvement in a criminal case. Respondent carried an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala. The Commissioner has remanded the case back to the Court of Collector. The petitioner filed a revision against the order of Commissioner before the Financial Commissioner, which is pending CWP No.5133 of 2008 [4] adjudication. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances, in the context of rival arguments, I am of the considered opinion that two important facts in relation to the character of respondent No.5 were brought to the notice of the authorities. While appointment of Lambardar or while adjudicating any appeal which would be in continuance of the proceedings, the authorities were required to adjudicate on the issue raised. The Commissioner has referred to the incident of deceptive date of birth given by the respondent. There is no reference to the pendency of the criminal case. The Financial Commissioner has dismissed the revision in limine although all the facts as taken in this petition were pleaded before him. 9. Since the issue of appointment of Lambardar is pending adjudication in continued litigation, it would be most appropriate that this issue is decided at the first instance. The issue of removal of respondent No.5 from the post of Lambardar would be secondary. 10. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Order dated 7.1.2008 (Annexure P-13) is hereby quashed. Case is remanded back to the Financial Commissioner, CWP No.5133 of 2008 [5] Haryana, to enable him to hear the petitioner and respondent No.5 on facts, in the context of grounds of revision filed by the petitioner. 11. The Financial Commissioner would first pass an order in the context of the issue of appointment of Lambardar since proceedings in that regard are pending. The issue of removal of the respondent from the post of Lambardar would be secondary and might be rendered superfluous in view of decision to be taken in regard to choosing a candidate from amongst petitioner and respondent No.5. The Financial Commissioner would adjudicate and decide the issue by 29.4.2011 in view of the delay already caused. 12. The petition is accordingly allowed. 13. Parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, on 28.2.2011. (AJAI LAMBA) February 09, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?