CWP No.387 of 2008. 5.11.2008 Present: Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajinder Kishore Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.2 and 3. The learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi has over-looked two vital aspects in the matter; firstly, though it has come in his order that Smt. Maya Devi had been working as Shishu Palika, however, no marks have been allotted to her as per the Scheme and secondly, there are no reasons assigned how he has come to the conclusion that petitioner’s husband is working as mechanic/foreman. The petitioner has specifically averred in the petition that her husband is an agriculturist and is not working as mechanic/foreman. This contention ought to have been ascertained/determined after permitting the parties to lead their evidence. Consequently, the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, dated 8th February, 2008 is quashed and set aside. The Divisional Commissioner, Mandi is directed to decide the entire lis afresh within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that if the affidavit sworn by either of the party is found false, the Divisional Commissioner is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against them. The parties are permitted to lead oral as well as documentary evidence before the Divisional Commissioner to prove their respective case. They shall appear before the Divisional commissioner, Mandi on 10th November, 2008. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti. November 5, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma), J. (sck)