CWP No.6321 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.6321 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.9.2010 Ram Lal .....Petitioner Vs. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab, for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate for respondent no.3. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.2.2010, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh, reversing orders dated 6.6.2002 and 16.5.2005, passed by the Collector, Jalandhar and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, respectively. After the demise of the incumbent, the petitioner was appointed as the scheduled caste Lambardar of the village. The Commissioner affirmed his appointment but the Financial Commissioner reversed the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, on the ground that the petitioner runs a general store in the adjoining village and during election to the post of Sarpanch, secured only 11 votes. CWP No.6321 of 2010 2 Counsel for the petitioner submits that votes secured by the petitioner during panchayat election are irrelevant, as the petitioner's candidature has to be considered in accordance with factors set out in Rule 19-B of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. It is further submitted that as the plea that the petitioner is running a general store in the adjoining village was not raised before the Collector or the Commissioner, it could not have considered by the Financial Commissioner, while remanding the matter. Counsel for respondent no.3 submits that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner is legal and valid. The availability of the Lambardar in the village is of primary importance. As the petitioner admittedly runs a general store in the adjoining village, he would not be available to the residents of the village during the day. It is further argued that the lack of petitioner's popularity in the village can be gauged from the fact that he secured only 11 votes during the election for the post of Sarpanch. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The Collector appointed the petitioner as the Lambardar, after considering all relevant facts. His appointment was affirmed by the Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner reversed these orders and remitted the matter to the Collector, on the ground that the petitioner's lack of acceptability to the residents, can be gauged from the fact that he secured 11 votes in an election to the post of Sarpanch. An election, by its very nature, cannot be equated with a selection. The votes secured during the election reflect the opinion of voters about the suitability of a candidate CWP No.6321 of 2010 3 for the post of a Sarpanch and not necessarily his suitability for the post of a Lambardar. However, the second factor namely; the petitioner's non availability in the village, is a relevant fact, but the Financial Commissioner instead of remitting the matter to the Collector, should have called upon parties to establish their respective pleas or called for a report from the Collector, so as to determine this fact. In view of what has been stated herein above, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 19.2.2010 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, to decide the matter afresh and in accordance with law, particularly with respect to the availability of the petitioner in the village. The Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, would be at liberty to call for a report from the Collector. Parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh, on 26.10.2010. 22.9.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE