Judgment RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL): The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.9.2010 (Annexure P-16) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab-respondent No.1, whereby order dated 15.1.12007 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, was upheld, appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar, while setting aside the order passed by the District Collector, vide which the petitioner was appointed as Lambardar. Facts first. Consequent upon the death of Sh. Amar Singh, Lambardar of village Badiyal, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur on 17.2.2005, one post of Lambardar fell vacant. Proceedings were initiated to fill up the post of Lambardar. Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dasuya, recommended the name of the petitioner and he was appointed as Lambardar by the District Collector, vide his order dated 21.3.2006 (Annexure P-1). Dissatisfied, respondent No.4 filed his appeal before the Commissioner, who, vide order dated 15.1.2007 (Annexure P-2), accepted the same. The petitioner filed his appeal before the Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 8.9.2010 (Annexure P-16). Feeling aggrieved against the above said orders passed by the Financial Commissioner as well as by the Commissioner, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned orders. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter. Notice of motion was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner, as well as by the Financial Commissioner are contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and also against the relevant provisions of law. He further submits that choice of the Collector should not have been upset by the Commissioner. He next contended that mere pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner at the time of his appointment, will not be a disqualification. He further contended that the petitioner has deposited the entire amount with the bank from which he had taken loan. He relies upon the documents Annexures P-4 to P-14, in this regard. He concluded by submitting that the impugned orders may be set aside, by allowing the present writ petition. In support of the his arguments, he relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gurbachan Singh versus Financial Commissioner (Appeal-I), Punjab, 2001 (2) PLR 503 . He relies upon the documents Annexures P-4 to P-14, in this regard. He concluded by submitting that the impugned orders may be set aside, by allowing the present writ petition. In support of the his arguments, he relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gurbachan Singh versus Financial Commissioner (Appeal-I), Punjab, 2001 (2) PLR 503 . Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the writ petition was wholly misconceived and without any substance. He further submits that the petitioner was a bank defaulter on the date of his appointment and he was also involved in three criminal cases. He concluded by submitting that since the petitioner has misrepresented before the authorities by making misleading statement, the Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner have rightly upset the order passed by the District Collector. Similarly, while supporting the arguments raised by learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for respondent No.4 vehemently contended that the petitioner was outrightly disqualified for appointment as Lambardar. He further submits that since the order passed by the District Collector was based on misrepresentation of facts and was suffering from patent illegality, it was rightly upset by the Commissioner as well as by the Financial Commissioner. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after going through the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that present one is a case wherein no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. A bare glance at the official record, produced by the petitioner himself in the form of Annexures P-4 to P-14, would leave no manner of doubt that on the date of appointment by the District Collector, vide order dated 21.3.2006, petitioner was admittedly a defaulter of Punjab National Bank. The petitioner has himself placed on record the challan receipts of bank, which are admittedly later in point of time. Besides being defaulter or not free from indebtedness, which is one of the disqualifications as per relevant provision contained in Rule 15 (d) of the Punjab Land revenue Rules, 1887, petitioner was also involved in three criminal cases. The petitioner has himself placed on record the challan receipts of bank, which are admittedly later in point of time. Besides being defaulter or not free from indebtedness, which is one of the disqualifications as per relevant provision contained in Rule 15 (d) of the Punjab Land revenue Rules, 1887, petitioner was also involved in three criminal cases. In this view of the matter, since the District Collector failed to take into consideration this overwhelming evidence against the petitioner, the order passed by the District Collector was, on the face of it, patently illegal and perverse, as well. Further, the order passed by the Collector was based on misrepresentation of facts. Thus, the order passed by the Collector was rightly upset by the Commissioner. When the matter came up for consideration before the Commissioner, he rightly considered and appreciated factual as well as legal aspect of the matter, before arriving at a judicious conclusion. After deliberating on each and every aspect of the matter, the Commissioner, while allowing the appeal of respondent No.4, vide his order dated 15.1.2007 (Annexure P-2), observed as under:- “I have given my thoughtful consideration to the written arguments of the parties, have also carefully evaluated the comparative merits of both these candidates and have also examined the record. I find that the respondent has neither enclosed the certificates from both the banks with his written arguments nor these were ever brought on the file of the lower court at any stage. In the absence of the same, it is inferred that he admits that allegations of being a defaulter of the Bank. The allegations of the appellant that the respondent is involved in three different criminal complaints/cases has also neither been denied by the respondent nor any explanation has been tendered by the respondent in his written arguments. So much so, these allegations of the appellant were never looked into by the District Collector. Therefore, the inference also goes against the respondent. I am further inclined to agree that being a landholder cannot be sole deciding factor. The appellant is younger in age, holds education at par with the respondent and owns landed property in the village which is adequate security against the Govt. due likely to be recovered by a Lambardar in the course of his Lambardari duties. I am further inclined to agree that being a landholder cannot be sole deciding factor. The appellant is younger in age, holds education at par with the respondent and owns landed property in the village which is adequate security against the Govt. due likely to be recovered by a Lambardar in the course of his Lambardari duties. Moreover, in view of abolition of land revenue in the state, owning of bigger land in the village loses its significance. Therefore, after evaluation of over all comparative merits of both these candidates. I find the appellant a more suitable candidate than the respondent. He has a clean slate. Therefore, I accept the present appeal, set aside the order of the District Collector, Hoshiarpur, and appoint the appellant/Kuljit Singh son of Shri Gian Singh as Lambardar of village Badiyal, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. Sanad be issued accordingly, Announced.” Similarly, the Financial Commissioner also did not commit any error of law, while passing the impugned order. He also held that since the petitioner was a defaulter and he was also facing the trial in three criminal cases, the Commissioner rightly upset the order passed by the District Collector. The operative part of the impugned order dated 8.9.2010 (Annexure P-16), passed by the Financial Commissioner, reads as under:- “I have considered the written arguments submitted by the counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case minutely. I fully agree with the findings of the Commissioner. The Commissioner has held that the petitioner was a defaulter of a bank and he has not attached any clearance certificate from the bank. Now the petitioner has claimed that the case has been decided in his favour on 15.5.2010. While making application are to be seen. Decision in favour of the petitioner proves that the petitioner was a defaulter at the time of appointment of the Lambardar. The Commissioner has also held that this fact was concealed by the petitioner from the District Collector inferring thereby that he was not a trustworthy person. No illegality/irregularities has been committed by the Commissioner, therefore, I uphold his order. The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.” So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute about the law laid down therein. No illegality/irregularities has been committed by the Commissioner, therefore, I uphold his order. The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.” So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute about the law laid down therein. However, it is also the settled proposition of law that each and every case is to be decided as per its own peculiar fact situation and the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly distinguishable on facts. Further, in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner was a defaulter of the bank and not free from indebtedness, he was not qualified to be appointed as Lambardar, as he was suffering from one of the disqualifications provided under Rule 15 (d) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. In this view of the matter, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that there was no compulsive necessity to give unwarranted preference to the petitioner over and above respondent No.4, who was having a clean image and was fully qualified for appointment to the post of Lambardar. The Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner have neither exceeded their jurisdiction, nor committed any error of law, while passing their respective impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out the violation of any of the relevant provisions of law. No other argument was raised. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, it is unhesitatingly held that since the order passed by the District Collector was based on misrepresentation of facts and was also suffering from patent illegality and perversity, it was rightly set aside by the Commissioner, as well as by the Financial Commissioner. The present writ petition is bereft of any merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.