Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 193 (JK)

Jagdish Kumar v. State Of J&K

2010-04-09

J.P.Singh

body2010
1. Bhagat Ram's disablement to discharge the functions of Village Headman/Lambardar Jandrore, resulted in the appointment of his son, Jagdish Kumar-petitioner as substitute Lambardar. 2. His functioning was not satisfactory and accordingly Dewan Chand, the Lambardar of the adjoining Village was asked to assume the additional charge of Lambardar Jandrore. He did not, however, oblige the official respondents and it was in these circumstances that the petitioner continued to function as substitute Lambardar. 3. Dissatisfied with the petitioner's functioning as substitute Lambardar, the people of the area made various Representations to seek his removal, to the State functionaries. 4. Acting on the Representations so made, the Minister Incharge directed conduct of Election of fresh Lambardar by secret ballot. 5. The Election was accordingly conducted in which the petitioner too participated. Respondent No.5, having polled 215 Votes was declared elected as the petitioner could poll only 164 votes. 6. On the basis of the result of the election, respondent no.5 was accordingly appointed as Lambardar Jandrore. 7. Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition questioning the Notice issued for the election of Lambardar and the election process taken subsequent thereto. His learned counsel Mr. Thakur submits that elections of Headmen, in terms of the Lambardari Rules 2005 could be held only if a Notification in terms of Rule 19 of the rules had been issued by the Revenue Minister and as the election of respondent No.5 had taken place without the issuance of requisite Notification by the Revenue Minister, so it was required to be quashed. 8. Learned State counsel and the counsel appearing for respondent No.5, on the other hand, submitted that the respondents had not held any General Election of the Headmen and no Notification in terms of Rule 19 was required. According to the official respondents, respondent No.5's appointment was that of a substitute Lambardar which in terms of the rules, the Tehsildar was empowered to make and holding of elections by the respondents before the appointment revealed only transparency and will of the people for having a Lambardar of their choice. 9. Learned counsel further urged that the petitioner having participated in the election and demonstrated his satisfaction in the election process, was not entitled to maintain the Writ Petition. 10. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 11. 9. Learned counsel further urged that the petitioner having participated in the election and demonstrated his satisfaction in the election process, was not entitled to maintain the Writ Petition. 10. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 11. The material placed on records indicates that the Authorities had resorted to the process of election for appointment of a substitute Lambardar in place of the petitioner whose continuance as substitute Lambardar was not to the satisfaction of the people of the area. The appointment of the substitute Lambardar had been ordered on receipt of several Representations by the official respondents to appoint a substitute Lambardar. 12. Although there was no need to hold election to appoint a substitute Lambardar, as the Tehsildar was competent to make such appointment, yet undertaking of the election process, may not affect the appointment of respondent No.5, particularly when the petitioner had not only participated in the election process for appointment of substitute Lambardar but had also given in writing along with others present at the time of the election that the election process was transparent and fair. 13. Having lost in the election and accepted the will of the people of the area in selecting respondent No.5 as substitute Lambardar for village Jandrore, the petitioner may not be entitled to question the appointment of respondent No.5. 14. Petitioner's learned counsel's submission that appointment of respondent no.5 was bad in law in absence of the requisite Notification by the Revenue Minister under Rule 19 of the Lambardari Rules is untenable, in that, in the absence of any general election of the Village Headman, there was no requirement for issuance of any Notification by the Revenue Minister, for the appointment of a substitute Lambardar. 15. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner's conduct of participating in the election process which has been admitted by him to be fair and transparent, I do not find any case for interference in the appointment of respondent No.5 as substitute Lambardar even though it was preceded by the unnecessary election which was not warranted before the appointment of respondent No.5 by the Tehsildar. 16. Finding no merit in the Writ Petition, it is, accordingly.