High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/628/2006dismissed

Harbans Singh v. State Of Punjab Etc

2015-12-02Mr. Justice S.C. Datta2 pages

-1CWP No.628 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.628 of 2006 Date of decision: 02.12.2015 Harbans Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: - Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Suresh Singla, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.4. PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL) Instant civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 06.04.1999 (Annexure P-1) passed by Collector, Ludhiana, whereby petitioner has been removed from the post of Lambardar of Village Ramgarh Sardaran, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana, order dated 30.01.2001 (Annexure P-2) passed by Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, and order dated 26.10.2005 (Annexure P-3) passed by Financial Commissioner, Punjab, whereby appeal and revision petition, respectively, filed by the petitioner have been dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

RAVINDER SINGH 2015.12.04 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

-2CWP No.628 of 2006 Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that orders passed by revenue authorities are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Revenue authorities have arbitrarily removed the petitioner from the post of Lambardar. Petitioner performed remarkable job for 45 years. He has been removed due to grudge by revenue authorities. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties.

A perusal of the record shows that there are allegations against the petitioner that he had threatened the revenue officials. Instead of helping the revenue officials as his pious duty, petitioner has interfered in their working. All the authorities have recorded the concurrent findings.

I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.

Dismissed.

No order as to costs.

(Paramjeet Singh) Judge December 02, 2015 R.S.

RAVINDER SINGH 2015.12.04 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document