CWP No.14815 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14815 of 2009 Date of decision : 3.9.2009 Buta Ram ….. Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and Others …..Respondents Present: Mr. S.S. Godara, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 8.9.2003 (Annexure P6) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Ratia (respondent No.4), the order dated 14.9.2006 (Annexure P7) passed by the District Collector, Fatehabad (respondent No.3), the order dated 3.6.2008 (Annexure P8) passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (respondent No.2) and the order dated 6.8.2009 (Annexure P9) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana (respondent No.1). The father of the petitioner namely Sh. Suhawa Ram was earlier Lambardar of village Burj, Tehsil Ratia, Distt. Fatehabad from amongst the members of the backward category. He died on 2.4.2003 and on his death, the process was initiated for filling up the vacant office of Lambardar. The Collector, Fatehabad (respondent No.3) granted necessary sanction and ordered the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Ratia to carry out proclamation and invite applications for consideration for appointment as Lambardar by 18.8.2003. An order CWP No.14815 of 2009 -2- dated 28.7.2003 (Annexure P1) in this regard has been placed on record whereby the Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Ratia (respondent No.9) ordered that 'munadi' (proclamation) be carried out in village Burj asking the persons/applicants interested to file their applications for consideration for appointment as Lambardar by 18.8.2003. The Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Ratia (respondent No.9) on 28.7.2003 (Annexure P2) ordered that after 'munadi' (proclamation) a rapt roznamcha (daily dairy report) be entered and a copy be affixed at a public place. Copy of roznamcha with signatures of the Sarpanch/Lambardar concerned were asked to be sent to his office before the date fixed. The Patwari submitted his report dated 31.7.2003 on the order Annexure P2 regarding the conduct of 'munadi' which was conducted by the Chowkidar of the village. 'Munadi' report No.432 (Annexure P3) was recorded in the Roznamcha Waqiati on 31.7.2003 regarding the conduct of the 'munadi'. After the 'munadi' had been conducted, the petitioner submitted his application (Annexure P4) on 14.8.2003. Respondents Lekh Raj and Satnam Chand (respondents No.7 and 8) respectively, however, filed an application dated 25.8.2003 (Annexure P5) to the effect that no 'munadi' for appointment of Lambardar from amongst the backward classes had been carried out. In fact the applications had been filed only after informing three persons and that too secretly in collusion and without any 'munadi'. The other residents of the village were not aware about the appointment of Lambardar. It was submitted that even the members of the Panchayat were not aware about this. On the said application, the SDO (Civil), Ratia (respondent No.4) passed an order dated 8.9.2003 whereby the CWP No.14815 of 2009 -3- earlier proceedings were set aside and directions were issued for reconducting the 'munadi'. The said orders have been upheld by the District Collector, the Commissioner and the learned Financial Commissioner (respondents No.3, 2 and 1) vide orders dated 14.9.2006 (Annexure P7), dated 3.6.2008 (Annexure P8) and dated 6.8.2009 (Annexure P9) respectively. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders have been passed in total disregard to the report of the Patwari dated 31.7.2003 recorded on the order Annexure P2, whereby it has been submitted that 'munadi' as ordered had been conducted through the Chowkidar of the village. Besides, the Rapat Roznamcha Waqiati recorded on 31.7.2003 (Annexure P3) with regard to the conduct of the 'munadi' has not been adverted to. It is also submitted that the SDO (Civil) (respondent No.4) is not competent to set aside the entire proceedings. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and also gone through the records of the case. The Tehsildar-cum- Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Ratia (respondent No.9) on 28.7.2003 (Annexure P1) had passed an order to the effect that on receiving sanction from the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehabad (respondent No.3) for appointment of permanent Lambardar in place of Suhawa Ram (deceased) 'munadi' be conducted in village Burj to the effect that in case any person is interested for consideration for appointment as Lambardar, he may do so by filing an application by 18.8.2003 on any working day. After the said date was over, no application in this regard would be entertained. Rapat Roznamcha CWP No.14815 of 2009 -4- Waqiati to this effect was ordered to be recorded and copy of the notice was ordered to be affixed at a public place and copy of Roznamcha with signatures of Sarpanch/Lambardar concerned was ordered to be sent to his office before the date fixed. On the said order, the Patwari on 31.7.2003 recorded that 'munadi' as ordered had been conducted through the Chowkidar of the village. Gosi Ram Chowkidar affixed his left thumb impression and Dudhar Ram, Lambardar also affixed his left thumb impression. A reading of the order dated 28.7.2003 (Annexure P1) would show that the Roznamcha with signatures of Sarpanch/Lambardar concerned was to be sent to the office before the date fixed. The copy of the Roznamcha recorded on 31.7.2003 (Annexure P3) has been placed on record. The said Roznamcha is signed by Gosi Ram, Chowkidar of the village which is to the effect that the 'munadi' had been conducted through the Chowkidar of the village in a loud voice. However, there is no signature of the Sarpanch concerned on the said Roznamcha (Annexure P3) as had been ordered in the order dated 28.7.2003 (Annexure P1) passed by the Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade (respondent No.9). The District Collector (respondent No.3) in his order dated 14.9.2006 (Annexure P7) perused the documents available on the file and reached at the conclusion that from perusal of the same, the 'munadi' had not been conducted in the village as per rules. Therefore, in public interest, fresh 'munadi' was ordered. In view of the said order of the District Collector (respondent No.3), the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the SDO (Civil), Ratia (respondent No.4) was not competent to set aside the proceedings and order a fresh 'munadi' is not of much significance as the District CWP No.14815 of 2009 -5- Collector (respondent No.3) in terms of order dated 14.9.2006 (Annexure P7) has affirmed the order and has held that fresh 'munadi' needs to be conducted as from the perusal of the record on the file, 'munadi' had not been conducted in the village as per rules. The defect even, if any, in the initial order of the SDO (Civil) Ratia (respondent No.4) stands cured by the order of the District Collector (respondent No.3). The Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (respondent No.2) has also affirmed the order of the District Collector (respondent No.3). Besides, the order has also been affirmed by the learned Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1) vide order dated 6.8.2009 (Annexure P9). In the circumstances, there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the revenue authorities whereby fresh 'munadi' has been ordered. Besides, no prejudice is shown to be caused to the petitioner if other candidates who may be available and are interested for the office of Lambardar are considered for appointment as Lambardar. Indeed the Roznamcha Waqiati recorded on 31.7.2003 (Annexure P3) is in disregard to the order dated 28.7.2003 (Annexure P1) inasmuch as there are no signatures of the Sarpanch with regard to the conduct of 'munadi' which was ordered by the Tehsildar-Cum-Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Ratia (respondent No.9). Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 23, 2009 amit