CWP No.14729 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.14729 of 2008 Date of Decision: 16.8.2010 Ram Gopal .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for respondents no.1 to 5. Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for respondent no.46 .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 4.3.2008, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, appointing Vishnu S/o Shivhari, respondent no.6, as the Lambardar of village Pangtalu, Tehsil Hodal, Distt.Faridabad. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the only points that arise for adjudication are that respondent no.6 is not entitled to be appointed as the Lambardar, as he made a false statement that he is the real grandson of the deceased Lambardar Gangadan and that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, dismissing the revision in limine, is a non speaking order. Counsel for respondent no.6 submits that no such statement CWP No.14729 of 2008 2 was made by the respondent or his counsel. The Commissioner fell into an error, while recording this fact. The respondent, therefore, cannot be held responsible. This apart, while considering the order passed by the Collector, all other aspects were considered, by the Commissioner. It is further submitted that the Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision as the petitioner was unable to point out any error in the choice of the Collector. I have heard counsel for the parties. The points urged by counsel for the petitioner are that respondent no.6 made a false statement before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner has passed a non speaking order. The Collector appointed respondent no.6, after weighing the merits of all the candidates. The Commissioner confirmed this order but while doing so, made an observation that respondent no.6 claims to be the grandson of the deceased Lambardar. It appears that the Commissioner made an error, while recording facts, as it is respondent no.7, who claims that he is the son of the deceased Lambardar. As regards the second argument, that the Financial Commissioner has not passed a speaking order, suffice is to state that the Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision in limine, as the petitioner failed to point out any infirmity in the order passed by the Collector. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner though brief, does not require interference. The order passed by the Collector, affirmed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner is neither perverse nor arbitrary and therefore, does not call for interference. CWP No.14729 of 2008 3 In view of what has been stated herein above, the writ petition is dismissed. 16.8.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE