IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7511 of 2011 Date of Decision: April 29, 2011 Jai Narain .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Vide Order dated 5.3.2002 (Annexure P-2), passed by District Collector, Sirsa, petitioner, Jai Narain, was appointed as Lambardar for village Nehrana, Tehsil & District Sirsa. 2. Respondent No.4, Rameshwar son of Mehar Chand, after more than 3 years, carried an appeal before Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar. The case set up by the private respondent is that no proper Mushtri Munadi was conducted CWP No.7511 of 2011 [2] and therefore, the most suitable person could not apply for appointment of Lambardar. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, and the record, prima facie, the Commissioner, vide Order dated 17.3.2009 (Annexure P-4) has allowed the petitioner to continue as Lambardar, however, has referred the matter back to Collector to see whether proper Munadi was conducted or not. It has been said that if Munadi was not proper, let fresh proceedings be initiated to fill up the post of Lambardar. 4. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner that has been dismissed vide Order dated 9.12.2010 (Annexure P-6). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that proper Munadi was conducted as is evident from the record, and therefore, the order of remand by Commissioner, as upheld by the Financial Commissioner, is illegal and against facts. 6. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 7. It is a disputed question of fact whether proper Munadi was conducted or not. Surely, Collector would be the best person to go CWP No.7511 of 2011 [3] into the facts and circumstances, in reference to the relevant record, to hold whether proper Munadi was conducted or not. In view of such circumstances, no ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is called for. 8. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 9. It is however directed that Collector would not be confined by the observations of the Commissioner made in Order dated 17.3.2009 (Annexure P-4) in regard to conduct of enquiry. Collector would be at liberty to conduct enquiry as deemed proper so as to conclude whether proper Mushtri Munadi was conducted or not. (AJAI LAMBA) April 29, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?