IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.8938 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 21, 2011 NARESH KUMAR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl.AG, Haryana. Mr. LS Sandhu, Advocate, for the respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 Challenge in this Civil Writ Petition is to order dated 22.4.2009 (Annexure P-3) whereby the Financial Commissioner has remanded the matter back to the Collector to first inquire whether petitioner-Naresh Kumar (respondent before the Financial Commissioner) was residing at Ellenabad or not. Civil Writ Petition No.8938 of 2009 2 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector vide order dated 18.5.2004. An appeal was carried by respondent No.2 to the Commissioner. The Commissioner, vide order dated 12.9.2006, remanded the case with the following observations:- “I have heard the arguments of the counsel for both the sides and have also perused the record. After considering the points raised by the counsel for the appellant during his arguments, it has been found that respondent Naresh Kumar resides in Ellenabad and is doing the business as property dealer, he is entered as voter in the voters list of Municipal Council, Ellenabad as well as Talwara. In these circumstances this case is remanded to the lower court with this direction that regarding the residence of the respondent in Village Talwara and Ellenabad be decided afresh after getting the enquiry done in this matter his name being entered in the voter list of both the places may be decided afresh on the basis of merits and demerits.” 3 Again, the Collector conducted inquiry and appointed the petitioner as Lambardar vide order dated 16.4.2007 (Annexure P-1), while noticing that the name of the petitioner has been deleted from the Voters' List of Ellenabad in the year 2004-05. The petitioner is voter of Talwara Khurd, wherefor he has been appointed Lambardar. 4 In the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was projected before the Collector that the petitioner has a house and landed property in the village. The Arms Licence of the petitioner has also been issued while giving the address of Village Talwara Khurd. The ration card also contains the address of the village. Civil Writ Petition No.8938 of 2009 3 5 Vide order dated 16.5.2008 (Annexure P-2), the order of Collector has been upheld while recording that the Collector had verified about the residence of the petitioner. 6 A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-3) indicates that the case has been again remanded on the same issue, for which the Commissioner had remanded the case. 7 On a perusal of the order (Annexure P-1), I find that the query raised by the Commissioner earlier vide order dated 12.9.2006 and, now, raised by the Financial Commissioner, already stands adjudicated after inquiry by the Collector. 8 Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has argued that the petitioner was not a voter of the Village and, therefore, was not even eligible to apply for the post of Lambardar. 9 Learned counsel for respondent No.2, however, has not been able to draw the attention of the court towards any rule or provision of law that inheres that only a voter of the village could apply for the post of Lambardar of that village. Ordinarily, a person is required to be resident of the village. The Collector has found the petitioner to be a resident of the village and, therefore, the argument addressed on behalf of respondent No.2 cannot be accepted in the context of the place where the petitioner is residing. 10 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the order (Annexure P-3) is not based on consideration of relevant material, rather, it is dehors the order earlier passed by the Commissioner and the inquiry conducted by the Collector, whereafter the petitioner has Civil Writ Petition No.8938 of 2009 4 been found to be residing in the village. 11 Accordingly, the petition is allowed and order dated 22.4.2009 (Annexure P-3) is quashed. January 21, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?