JUDGMENT Mr. Ajai Lamba, J. (Oral): - This Civil Writ Petition has been filed at the instance of Satwinder Pal Singh for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 20.10.2009 (Annexure P-30), passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab (respondent No.2) and order dated 19.3.2001 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala (respondent No.3). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the post of Lambardar for Village Borha, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, fell vacant on the death of Lambardar- Ishar Singh, who died in the year 1996. Collector, Ludhiana, considered the matter and appointed the petitioner as Lambardar vide order dated 12.5.1998 (Annexure P-6). Harjinder Pal Singh (respondent No.5) preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, who vide order dated 19.3.2001 (Annexure P-9) came to the conclusion that the petitioner had left the village and settled at Village Sahnewal. The petitioner had also been fined in a theft case, for cutting trees of forest department, whereas respondent No.5 had an edge on the basis of the fact that he had served as Sarbrah Lambardar in place of Ishar Singh. The appeal was accepted and the matter was remanded back to the Collector for fresh decision. It seems that a revision was carried to the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner held the order passed by the Commissioner to be perverse and accepted the appeal. 3. CWP 8774 of 2006 (Harjinder Pal Singh v. Financial Commissioner and others) was filed before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court has considered the afore-given facts and quashed the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. This Court remanded the case back to the Financial Commissioner for fresh decision after giving reasons to set aside the Commissioner’s order. 4. The issue raised and contested before the Financial Commissioner is only in regard to the fact whether the petitioner was a resident of Village Borha or was, ordinarily, residing at Village Sahnewal. The issue has been addressed at length by the Financial Commissioner in the impugned order and has been decided against the petitioner. The Financial Commissioner, in the impugned order, has taken into account report dated 19.8.2009 submitted by the Patwari Halqa, which indicated that the petitioner was not permanently residing in Village Borha and was, in fact, residing in Village Sahnewal. The Financial Commissioner, in the impugned order, has taken into account report dated 19.8.2009 submitted by the Patwari Halqa, which indicated that the petitioner was not permanently residing in Village Borha and was, in fact, residing in Village Sahnewal. It was only when a report was sought from the authorities that the petitioner tried to create evidence to show his residence in Village Borha. 5. Even Naib Tehsildar, Kumkalan, and Tehsildar, Ludhiana (East) furnished a report stating that the petitioner was, ordinarily, residing in Village Sahnewal. It was, in fact, found that the petitioner did not even have his vote in Village Borha, rather it was in Village Sahnewal. Subsequently, the petitioner got registered as a voter in Village Borha in supplementary list. 6. Before the Financial Commissioner, the petitioner admitted in clear terms that he is resident of Village Borha and he has a residence in Village Sahnewal also. The Financial Commissioner has considered the comparative merit of the two candidates and found that the same was comparable. On the issue of residence, it has been found that the petitioner was not permanent resident of Village Borha. 7. Impugned order (Annexure P-30) has assigned legally tenable reasons for appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar, while modifying order dated 19.3.2001 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Commissioner. The reasons are based on relevant material. The documentary evidence has been given preference to the oral version given by the respective followers of the candidates, which in my considered opinion, is the correct approach, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Ordinarily, in writ jurisdiction, the orders passed by the statutory authorities in quassi judicial proceedings, in regard to findings of fact, are not required to be interfered with, unless the reasons are without basis or based on irrelevant material and facts. 9. No ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction has been shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner and, therefore, the petition is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------