CWP No.2972 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.2972 of 2010 Date of Decision: 5.8.2010 Jasbir Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anupal Gill, AAG, Punjab for the respondents. ...... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 26.8.2009 and 27.9.2005, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab, Chandigarh and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. After a long drawn out legal battle that included a remand of the matter, the Collector once again reiterated his choice and appointed the petitioner as the Lambardar of Village Basrai, Tehsil Batala, Distt. Gurdaspur. The Collector rejected the candidature of Tarsem Singh, on the ground that he has failed to rebut the argument that he is defaulter of a loan raised from a cooperative society and is not resident of the Patti. Aggrieved by this order, Tarsem Singh filed an appeal. The Commissioner accepted the appeal, set aside the order passed by the CWP No.2972 of 2010 2 Collector and directed the appointment of Tarsem Singh. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab, Chandigarh, which was dismissed on 26.8.2009. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as is apparent from death certificate Annexure P-4, Tarsem Singh has passed away on 10.11.2008 but this fact could not be brought to the notice of the Financial Commissioner. It is further argued that as the order passed by the Collector does not suffer from any legal infirmity, error of jurisdiction or a perverse exercise of discretion, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose his choice by assessing the merits of candidates. Even otherwise, the Commissioner did not deal with or advert to a finding recorded by the Collector that Tarsem Singh is a defaulter, of a loan, raised from a cooperative society. It is argued that in view of the death of Tarsem Singh and the errors committed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, the writ petition should be allowed, the orders dated 26.8.2009 and 27.9.2005 should be set aside. Counsel for the State of Punjab submits that as Tarsem Singh has passed away, the matter should be remitted to the Collector to call for fresh applications. It is further submitted that the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, though appellate and revisional authority are not required to accept the choice of the Collector mechanically and in case of any error of jurisdiction or of law may reverse the order passed by the Collector. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The petitioner was admittedly selected by the Collector. The candidature of Tarsem Singh was rejected, on the ground that he was a CWP No.2972 of 2010 3 defaulter of a loan raised from a cooperative society and did not reside within the patti. The Commissioner, without considering or even adverting to finding that Tarsem Singh was a defaulter, appropriated to himself the jurisdiction of the Collector, proceeded to weigh the merits of the candidates and appointed Tarsem Singh as the Lambardar. It has been repeatedly held by a long line of binding precedents that the choice of the Collector is final, except where it is demonstrably, arbitrary, perverse, preposterous or violative of any law. Opinion as to the suitability of a candidate may differ on facts but this alone would not entitle an appellate or revisional authority to impose its own perception of their merits. Where two plausible views are possible, the choice of the Collector shall prevail. While reversing the order passed by the Collector, the Commissioner did not record any finding that the order passed by the Collector is illegal, arbitrary, perverse, preposterous or violative of any law. The Commissioner, therefore, had no jurisdiction to interfere with the choice of the Collector. The Financial Commissioner failed to discern this error in the order passed by the Commissioner. It would be necessary to mention that during pendency of proceedings before the Financial Commissioner, Tarsem Singh, passed away. As the selection of petitioner, by the Collector, is legal and valid, no useful purpose would be served by directing the Collector to start the process of selection afresh, In view of what has been stated herein above, the writ petition is allowed, orders dated 26.8.2009 and 27.9.2005 are set aside and the order dated 30.9.2004 passed by the Collector is affirmed, with no order as to costs. 5.8.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE CWP No.2972 of 2010 4