IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 15436 of 2008 Date of Order: 22.02.2010 Rakam Singh ....Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner(Appeal) Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Vineet Chaudhary,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Addl. A.G.,Haryana for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocate for respondents No.5 RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No.15436 of 2008 and Civil Writ Petition No.20143 of 2008 as they arise from common order passed in proceedings relating to the appointment of a Lambardar. For the sake of convenience facts are being taken from C.W.P.No.15436 of 2008. Prayer in this petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 12.02.2008, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, reversing the order dated 12.09.2007, passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala. Upon the demise of the incumbent Lambardar, the Collector, invited applications from interested candidates. The petitioner, respondent no.5 and others applied for appointment to the post of Lambardar. The Collector after considering the merits of the parties appointed Vikram Singh-respondent no.5 as the Lambardar. In an appeal filed by the petitioner, the Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Collector and remitted the matter by observing as follows:- “This fact also came before me that a Criminal case has been registered against appellant challenged and case under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. has been register against respondent. But there is no mention in this regard in the impugned order. In my opinion after going through all the above mentioned fact there is necessity for deciding the matter in question again. In these circumstances impugned order of the Collector be set aside and case is remanded to the Collector Yamunanagar with this direction that he must after hearing the parties by keeping the above mentioned facts in mind decide the case again on the basis of merits and demerits. Parties were given instructions that they should be present in the lower court on 25.09.2007.” The Financial Commissioner, accepted the revision, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and upheld the appointment of Vikram Singh-respondent no.5 as the Lambardar. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and am satisfied that the Financial Commissioner has committed an error of jurisdiction. While setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner, the Financial Commissioner has failed to consider whether any criminal case was registered or is pending against the petitioner or the other candidates. The Commissioner had accepted the petitioner's appeal and remanded the matter to the Collector on the ground that a criminal case has been registered against the respondent no.5 and the petitioner. The Financial Commissioner has failed to record any finding with respect to the criminal cases. As a consequence, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 12.02.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner to decide the revision afresh, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till the decision of the revision petition, status quo shall be maintained with respect to the functioning/working of the Lambardar. February 22, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE