High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/13544/2017dismissed

Manjit Kaur v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab & ORS

2017-07-03Mr. Justice R.P. Nagrath2 pages

Vinod Kumar 2017.07.04 12:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.13544 of 2017 [ 1 ] *****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.13544 of 2017 Date of decision:03.07.2017 Manjit Kaur

...Petitioner

Versus

Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others

...Respondents

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.

**** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 14.08.2012 passed by the Collector, Moga, appointing respondent no.4 as Lambardar of village Mahesari, District Moga, order dated 11.12.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, by which appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Collector dated 14.08.2012 was dismissed, and the order dated 04.10.2016 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, by which revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. In short, the post of Lambardar of village Mahesari fell vacant due to death of erstwhile Lambardar Gurbax Singh. The process was completed and the Collector, vide his order dated 14.08.2012, appointed respondent no.4 as Lambardar. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before the higher Courts and hence, the present petition has been filed. In this petition, the petitioner has only mentioned the facts upto

CWP No.13544 of 2017 [ 2 ] ***** para no.5 and para no.6 contained the grounds in which there is no reference of any rule which is alleged to have been violated by the authorities below at the time of appointment of Lambardar.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that since respondent no.4 was involved in various criminal cases, in which, though he has been acquitted, he should not have been appointed as Lambardar.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the available record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the petition. It is well settled that the choice of the collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar has to be respected until and unless his choice is based upon misreading or non-reading of the material evidence on record. The fact that respondent no.4 was involved in criminal cases is of no consequence because he has been acquitted in all the cases and the Collector has found him as a most suitable candidate for the said post. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.

July 03, 2017 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge Whether speaking / reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No