IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2952 of 2011 Date of Decision: February 17, 2011 Mewa Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, setting aside Order dated 17.1.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Financial Commissioner. Orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner in appointing the petitioner as Lambardar of village Dachar, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal, have been set aside. CWP No.2952 of 2011 [2] 2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner had cleared the default in returning the loan although on 5.10.2006. 3. It is further the conceded position that applications were invited for appointment as Lambardar in May 2006. Thus, it is the admitted position that default in re-payment of loan was cleared after the date of invitation of applications. 4. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Petitioner and respondent No.4 were the main contestants. The premise on which the Financial Commissioner has remanded the matter to the Collector for inviting fresh applications for appointment of Lambardar as per law, is that, respondent No.4 as also the petitioner have been defaulters in re-payment of loan. 6. In the context of petitioner, it has specifically been said that the petitioner had taken loan of ` 1 lac. On account of default of the petitioner in re-payment, the amount had accumulated to ` 6 lac. 7. Learned counsel has relied on 2007 (5) RCR (Civil) 838, Harbans Singh vs. The Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab & others’ to argue that the Financial Commissioner CWP No.2952 of 2011 [3] has no power to summon the record of the case and appoint a Lambardar by evaluating merits of candidates himself. 8. The judgment cited by the learned counsel is irrelevant. The Financial Commissioner has not appointed any Lambardar. He has only considered the comparative merits. The Financial Commissioner has found that the petitioner as also the private respondent are defaulters and therefore, a better candidate for appointment of Lambardar is required to be appointed. In such circumstances, order of remand has been passed for inviting fresh applications. 9. Learned counsel also relies on 2000 (2) PLJ 469, Sardool Singh vs. The Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab & others to contend that date of appointment would constitute the relevant date for considering the merit. 10. I have gone through the judgment in Sardool Singh’s case (supra). The issue raised before the Court was in regard to pendency of a criminal case. It has been observed in Para 5 that on the relevant date, there was merely an allegation. Ultimately, the person who was appointed as Lambardar was acquitted. In this view of the matter, even reliance on the said judgment is not relevant. CWP No.2952 of 2011 [4] 11. I do not trace any illegality in the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. No interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 12. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner, if eligible, would be at liberty to apply for being appointed Lambardar. (AJAI LAMBA) February 17, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?