IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 782 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 29, 2011 Sukhchain Singh …Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, D.A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. N.S. Minhas, Advocate, for respondent No.4. 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Alok Singh, J. In the present case, the only question involved is as to whether the Financial Commissioner (Respondent No.1) was well within his jurisdiction while remanding the matter to CWP No. 782 of 2010 the Collector to consider afresh candidature of the petitioner and respondent No.4 for the post of Lambardar on the ground that petitioner is running a shop 6 kms. away from the village, therefore, would not be available to the villagers? Undisputedly, petitioner is resident of the same village, although is stated to have one shop 6 kms. away from the village. Appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lambardar by the Collector ought not to have been disturbed by the Financial Commissioner on the ground that since the petitioner is running a shop 6 kms. away from the village, therefore, he may not be available to the villagers. In view of the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram and others reported in 2009(3) SCC 439, opinion of the Collector in case of the appointment of Lambardar should not be disturbed until and unless, higher authorities or this Court find that the learned Collector has escaped important material or action of the Collector seems to be out of extraneous consideration or Collector has been misled. Learned Financial Commissioner has not recorded any finding that Collector was ever misled by placing irrelevant material or has escaped important material while forming opinion in favour of the petitioner or action of the Collector seems to be out of extraneous consideration. Merely because petitioner is having one shop 6 kms. away from the village is no ground to disturb the finding of the 2 CWP No. 782 of 2010 Collector on the basis of apprehension that petitioner may not be available to the villagers. Undisputedly, petitioner is resident of the same village and is residing in the same village, therefore, having shop 6 kms. away from the village would not be a ground to disturb the opinion of the Collector. This Court in the case of Amarjit Kaur vs. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab and others, C.W.P. No. 6665 of 2010, decided today on 29.07.2011 has opined that Lambardar cannot be expected to be an unemployed or merely engaged in the agricultural activities. In the opinion of this Court, Lambardar cannot be expected to be an unemployed or merely engaged in agricultural activities. Merely because petitioner is running a shop just 6 kms away from the village, would not mean that he will not be available in the village to perform duties of Lambardar. Present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 06.11.2009 passed by Financial Commissioner is set aside, order of the Collector dated 13.12.2005 is restored. July 29, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3