CWP No. 23230 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 23230 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: May 26, 2011 Darshan Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others .......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. J.S. Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Sonu Chahal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. A.S. Parmar, Advocate, for respondent no. 4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. The issue that has been raised in this petition is in regard to appointment of a Lambardar for village Nadalon, Tehsal Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. Petitioner-Darshan Singh s/o Chajju Ram and respondents no. 4 and 5 namely Kewal Singh and Gurmail Singh were the main contestants. 2. The Collector, vide order Annexure P-1 dated 30.08.2005, directed appointment of respondent no. 4-Kewal Singh as Lambardar, after taking into account comparative merit of the candidates. The petitioner carried an appeal. The Commissioner accepted the appeal of the petitioner vide order Annexure P-2 dated 02.05.2006. The Financial Commissioner, on a petition filed by respondent no. 4-Kewal Singh, vide order Annexure P-3 dated 26.05.2010, has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and upheld the order passed by the Collector, while restoring appointment CWP No. 23230 of 2010 2 of respondent no. 4-Kewal Singh as Lambardar. 3. The Financial Commissioner has taken into account the fact that the petitioner-Darshan Singh was involved in two criminal cases namely FIR No. 85 dated 21.07.1999 under Section 409/341 IPC, P.S. Mahilpur in regard to which he remained in jail and case FIR No. 23 dated 15.02.2007 in regard to forgery of documents, promissory notes, agreement, death certificate and usurping the land. 4. Respondent no. 4-Kewal Singh, in his reply filed in Court, has detailed the pendency of cases in para no. 1 of the preliminary objections. It has been indicated that the subject matter of FIR No. 23 is fabrication of 7 documents and, therefore, involvement of the petitioner is made out for commission of offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC. It has also been brought out that proceedings under Section 195/340 Cr.P.C. have also been initiated for furnishing false documents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in response to the allegation of involvement in criminal cases, contends that the cases are pending, however, they relate to disputes between the family members. 6. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. 7. The petitioner cannot be considered suitable for appointment of Lambardar in view of his criminal record. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner in restoring order of the District Collector does not suffer from any illegality in so much as relevant considerations have been taken into account. 8. No ground for judicial review of impugned order Annexure P-3 dated 26.05.2010 passed by Financial Commissioner is made out in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner CWP No. 23230 of 2010 3 cannot be termed as perverse in nature. 9. Petition dismissed. 26.05.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not/ 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?