CWP No. 8692 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8692 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: May 17, 2011 Naveen Kumar .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and others .......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Chanakya Pandit, Advocate, for caveator-respondent. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. Lambardar for village Samora, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal was to be appointed for which the petitioner-Naveen Kumar and respondent no. 4- Sanjeev Kumar were the main contestants. 2. The Collector vide order dated 24.02.2009 Annexure P-1 appointed the petitioner as Lambardar. Respondent no. 4 carried an appeal that has been dismissed vide order Annexure P-2 dated 25.06.2010 by Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. The respondent carried revision that has been allowed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana vide order Annexure P-3 dated 04.04.2011. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings recorded by the Financial Commissioner to the effect that the petitioner is not ordinarily resident of the village and, therefore, shall not be able to discharge the functions of a Lambardar, are totally perverse. In this context, CWP No. 8692 of 2011 2 reference has been made to the concluding part of order Annexure P-1 passed by Collector, Karnal wherein, it has been said that voter list that has been produced indicates that Naveen Kumar was registered as a voter in the year 2007 in village Samora and the petitioner owns land in the village. 4. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 5. The Financial Commissioner, while passing impugned order Annexure P-3, has taken a pragmatic approach by way of returning findings of facts in para no. 6 of the impugned order. It has been said in para no. 6 that the petitioner cannot be said to be ordinarily residing in the village because admittedly, he maintains a regular residence/house at Karnal. The Karnal residence address has been mentioned in various documents available on record. The petitioner got his vote made in village Samora in the year 2007 after the death of previous Lambardar only for the purpose of applying for the post of Lambardar. The petitioner had his entire education in Karnal. The petitioner is an Advocate by profession and, therefore, is required to remain at his work place at his courts for dealing with his clients, which raises a serious question mark in regard to his availability to the villagers and government functionaries during their visits in the village that is located 14 kilometers from Karnal. The inference drawn in view of the above stated facts do not call for any interference. 6. So far as case of the private respondent is concerned, he is found to be involved in criminal cases. 7. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the Collector, Karnal has been directed to start the process of appointment of a Lambardar afresh, taking into consideration requisite qualifications required for the post of Lambardar/Headman. CWP No. 8692 of 2011 3 8. This Court does not find any reason to judicially review the order passed by the Financial Commissioner in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 9. Petition dismissed. 17.05.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?