Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1359 (PNJ)

Mohan Singh v. Sodhi Singh

2003-09-25

MUKUL JOSHI

body2003
JUDGMENT Mukul Joshi, FC. - This is a revision appeal against the order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division dated 29th May, 2001 in the matter of Lambardari of the Village Dugri, Tehsil and District Ludhiana vide which he set aside the order of the District Collector dated 12.1.1999, and appointed the present appellant Mohan Singh as Lambardar of the village Dugri. Vide this order the Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector, Ludhiana and appointed the present respondent Sodhi Singh as Lambardar of Village Dugri. 2. On behalf of the appellant it has been argued that the order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division is perverse and requires to be set aside. It does not give adequate justification for setting aside the choice of the Collector Ludhiana of Shri Mohan Singh appellant to be appointed as Lambardar. It is averred that the Commissioner has not appreciated various qualifications that the appellant has e.g. his age, educational qualification, good character, residence in the village Dugri, recommendation of the Naujawan Sabha, recommendation of the President, Dugri Welfare Society, the fact that the appellants wife was a member of the Panchayat for ten years, and the recommendation of the Durga Mata Mandir Committee. It has been further averred that the Commissioner ignored the various factors which make the respondent a less desirable choice as Lambardar as compared to the appellant. These are the fact that the respondent is a defaulter, that he collected Rs. 400.00 each from the residents of village Jamalpur for allotment of plots but did not get the plots allotted that he is running a business in village Dhandra and, therefore, is not a full time resident of village Dugri, and there is Civil and Criminal litigation pending against the respondent. In addition to the above it was further averred that there are certain factual errors and inconsistencies in the order of the Commissioner. For example in Commissioners orders in the 2nd paragraph it is recorded that the appellant (defendant in the present case) is 47 years old yet in para 4 it is recorded that he is 54 years old. Further it is recorded that in para 2 the present respondent runs a shop village in village Dugri whereas factually this is not correct and shop is in village Dhandran. Further it is recorded that in para 2 the present respondent runs a shop village in village Dugri whereas factually this is not correct and shop is in village Dhandran. In view of this, it has been argued that the Commissioner has not applied his mind carefully and has set aside order of the Collector in an unjustified manner. It has been prayed that the order of the Commissioner be set aside and the order of the Collector allowed to prevail. 3. On behalf of the respondent, the averments made were primarily against the order of the Collector. It was averred that the findings of the Collector that the respondent is not a resident of village Dugri is not based on any cogent basis or reasons, that the Collectors observation that the respondent is a defaulter is also not correct because the debt of the bank was cleared by the respondent during the Lambardari proceedings and that the Honble Collector has ignored the merits of the respondent while passing the order. 4. During the course of arguments an issue was raised that the certificate attested by the Sarpanch of village Dhandra that the respondent Sodhi Singh runs a shop in that village in a forged certificate. It was alleged by the Counsel for the respondent that the signatures and rubber stamp of the Sarpanch are forged. This was contested by the counsel for the appellant stating that the rubber stamp matches with other documents establish that the certificate was issued by this Sarpanch. 5. I have gone through the record of the case and heard arguments of the Counsels. The basic issue in this case is the sustainability of the order of the Commissioner. If the Commissioner wishes to set aside the order of the Collector he should give adequate reasons for doing so. In Lambardari cases it is the choice of the District Collector that is to be respected and orders of the District Collector ought not to be set aside simply because the appellant (appellate ?) authority feels that the other candidate may be a better candidate. It has to be established that there is a serious infirmity in the selection of the District Collector and the candidate chosen by the District Collector is ineligible or that the selection is patently unjustified. In the present case these conditions are not fulfilled. It has to be established that there is a serious infirmity in the selection of the District Collector and the candidate chosen by the District Collector is ineligible or that the selection is patently unjustified. In the present case these conditions are not fulfilled. The Commissioner has merely opined that the respondent Sodhi Singh "has an edge on the rival candidate" and has found that "the appellant is more suitable than the respondent". These observations are based on five facts i.e. that the respondent is 54 years old, educated upto middle class, remained member of the village Panchayat for five years, remained President of the Dugri Welfare Society, and was unanimously elected President of the Gurdwara Sahib Committee and constructed the building of the Gurdwara. I am afraid these are not adequate grounds for setting aside the order of the Collector and reversing his choice. It is for the District Collector to select the Lambardar, and if he has done so after weighing the merits and demerits of the candidate then unless there is some serious infirmity in the manner in which the Collector has made his choice, such choice should not be interfered with lightly. In the present case the Collector has selected appellant after weighing the merits and demerits of the three candidates. There is nothing to indicate that the choice of the Collector is infirm or perverse. Higher appellant (appellate ?) authorities may feel that the rival candidate may be better but this can not be adequate ground to reverse the order of the District Collector. 6. In view of the above I accept the appeal. The order of the Commissioner is set aside and the order of the District Collector is upheld. Appeal allowed.