Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2111 (PNJ)

Mohinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner

2011-11-25

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - The conspectus of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that, in the wake of death of Bikram Singh, a post of Lambardar (SC) of village Aiman Muglan, Tehsil Garhshankar, Distt.Hoshiarpur had fallen vacant. The applications were invited and the candidates put forth their respective claims for the indicated post of Lambardar under the provisions of The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and the relevant Rules”. Ultimately, two candidates, namely, Mohinder Singh son of Babu Singh (petitioner) and Sodhi Ram son of Gurdev Singh (respondent No.4) remained in the fray/field. The District Collector (respondent No.3), without considering their respective merits and demerits, ignored the claim of respondent No.4 only on the ground that since respondent No.4 is dealing in poultry farm, so, he would not be available and appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the village, by virtue of order dated 13.3.2008 (Annexure P1). 2. Dissatisfied with the order (Annexure P1), Sodhi Ram (respondent No.4) filed the appeal, which was accepted and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar (respondent No.2) appointed him on the post in question, by way of impugned order dated 29.7.2009 (Annexure P2). 3. Sequelly, further appeal (Annexure P3) filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1), by means of impugned order dated 1.6.2011 (Annexure P4). 4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P2 & P4), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition. 6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the District Collector has rightly appointed the petitioner on the post of Lambardar, so, the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner committed a legal mistake in appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar, lacks merit. 7. 6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the District Collector has rightly appointed the petitioner on the post of Lambardar, so, the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner committed a legal mistake in appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar, lacks merit. 7. As is evident from the record that the District Collector has just ignored the claim of respondent No.4, only on the ground that as he has a poultry farm, therefore, he would not be able to devote the adequate time to the work of Lambardar and appointed the petitioner as Lambardar in a very causal manner. Here, to me, the District Collector has slipped into a deep legal error in this respect. The dealing in a poultry business in the village cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed to be a dis-qualification for the appointment of Lambardar. The District Collector ought to have considered the respective merits and demerits of the candidates and was required to record valid reasons for arriving at correct conclusion in order to decide the real controversy between the parties. Every action of such statutory authorities must be informed by reasons. The order must be fair, clear, reasonable and in the interest of justice and fair play. Every order must be confined and structured by rational and relevant material on record because the valuable rights of the parties are involved. 8. It is not a matter of dispute that respondent No.4 is a self employed villager. He is younger in age than the petitioner. He (respondent No.4) is nephew of deceased Lambardar and has the experience. His name was duly recommended by the Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Magistrate. 9. In this manner, the District Collector did not exercise his power judiciously, has not considered the respective pros and cons of the candidature of candidates and has ignored the merits of respondent No.4 with impunity. 10. The grave error committed by the District Collector was duly rectified by the Commissioner, through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P2), which, in substance, is (para 6) as under:- “6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the parties and have also carefully examined the comparative merits of both these candidates. 10. The grave error committed by the District Collector was duly rectified by the Commissioner, through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P2), which, in substance, is (para 6) as under:- “6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the parties and have also carefully examined the comparative merits of both these candidates. The District Collector, Hoshiarpur, has ignored the better merits of the appellant on the solitary ground that being engaged in poultry farming business he may not be able to devote time to the post of SC Lambardar. This apprehension of the District Collector does not cut much ice. The appellant is the permanent resident of the village and carries his poultry farming business in the village itself. His availability in the village and to the village community is quite assured. Thus business cannot be held a disqualification under any circumstances rather this ads to his eligibility. The appellant is a self employed villager and it young enough to undertake any responsibility. The appellant is better educated than the respondent, is younger in age than the respondent, is the nephew of the deceased Lambardar, knows Lambardari work, is easily available in the village thoughtful day and night, has a clean slate and nothing adverse has been reported against his conduct. His name was duly recommended by the Tehsildar, Garhshankar, and the SDM Garhshankar. Though the recommendations of lower Revenue Officers are not binding upon the District Collector who is to make his own choice independently yet these recommendations do play pivotal role in determining the suitability of a candidate. Therefore, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case and having regard to the comparative merits of both these candidate for appointment as SC Lambardar of the village. Consequently, I accept the present appeal, set aside the impugned order of the learned District Collector, Hoshiarpur, as well as the appointment of the respondent as SC Lambardar, and order appointment of the appellant as SC Lambardar of village Aiman Muglan, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. To be communicated.” 11. Not only that, the order (Annexure P2) was upheld by the Financial Commissioner, by virtue of impugned order (Annexure P4). 12. To be communicated.” 11. Not only that, the order (Annexure P2) was upheld by the Financial Commissioner, by virtue of impugned order (Annexure P4). 12. At the same time, the learned counsel for petitioner did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned orders (Annexures P2 & P4) are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant connection. 13. Meaning thereby, the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant direction in the impugned orders. Such orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner, so, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for petitioner. 15. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. --------------