Civil Writ Petition no.18595 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition no.18595 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on : 30-09-2011 Baldev Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Irrigation) Punjab, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Navdeep Chabbra, Advocate for the petitioner MAHESH GROVER, J This is a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ specially in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned orders Annexure P-3 and P-4. The petitioner who had succeeded in getting an appointment of Lambardar was subjected to challenge by the respondent no.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) Patiala Division, Patiala accepted the challenge and remitted the matter back by making the following observations:- “I feel that the merits of the appellant needs to be reconsidered as he has worked as Sarbrah Lambardar for more than 4 years an he is well conversant with the work of Lambardari. Though the lower revenue autorities have recommend the candidature of respondent no.1 to appoint as Lambardar but the same cannot be made sole basis of appointing a person as Lambardar. In view of the above, the appeal filed in this case is hereby accepted and the case is Civil Writ Petition no.18595 of 2011 (O&M) 2 remanded back to District Collector, Barnala to decide the case afresh keeping in view the said observations and after considering the merits and demerits of both the candidates afresh speaking order be passed.” Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner, Irrigation, Punjab, Chandigarh who noticed that since the order of the Commissioner was merely an order of remand whereby the competent authority was directed to evaluate and re-evaluate the merits and demerits of the candidates before deciding the question of appointment of Lambardar, there is no infirmity committed and upheld the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this has resulted in pre-judging the issue as sufficient indication has been given in the order which would favour the respondent no.2. He further contends that claim of the respondent no.2 that he is a Sarbrah Lambardar for more than 4 years is incorrect. The contentions that have been raised before this Court do not merit any acceptance as the Commissioner while adjudicating the matter has merely referred to the grievances and claims and counter claims set up by petitioner and respondent no.2 and after answering the controversy before it the matter had been remanded back with a clear direction that the case of appointment of Lambardar should be considered afresh keeping in view the said observations and considering the merits and de-merits of both the candidates by passing an order afresh. The observation which the petitioner finds to be offensive is normally given for consideration of claims and counter claims which errupt in a challenge to an order and in no way can be Civil Writ Petition no.18595 of 2011 (O&M) 3 considered to be a guideline to the authority who is required to determine the issue. No ground to interfere. Hence, dismissed. September 30, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge