Sat Parkash vs Financial Commissioner, Haryana and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.

CM No. 12877 of 2012

Prayer is to place on record the written statement on behalf of respondent No. 4. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application disposed of.

Civil Writ Petition No. 3121 of 2012

Lambardar of village Rohana expired on 02.02.2009. The process to appoint Lambardar for village was initiated. 15.04.2009 was fixed as the

last date for filing the application. After receiving the reports from the revenue staff, the Collector appointed the petitioner. While appointing the

petitioner, the Collector has observed as under:

If kept in mind then in totality of the circumstances the side of Sat Parkash candidate is better than the other candidate Sat Pal. Sat Parkash

candidate is resident of this very Thola Sadh while Sat Pal is not resident of this Thola. As per Naksha Lambardari and police report Sat Parkash

candidate is resident of village Rohana and he has very good rapat (rapport) in village (P-1).

Respondent, herein, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner, which was dismissed on 08.04.2011. Thereafter, he approached the

Financial Commissioner who passed the order in the revision and remanded the case back to the Collector only to check whether the petitioner is

bona fide resident of the village or not. In the impugned order, the Financial Commissioner has specifically rejected the argument of the respondent

about he being more meritorious. It is observed by him ""while I do not accept the claim of the petitioner regarding claimed superior merits because

it is the prerogative of the Collector to evaluate the same"". Though the Financial Commissioner went on to interfere with the appointment and

choices exercised by the Collector and upheld by the Commissioner just to find out if the petitioner is resident of Tehsil Kharkhoda and not of

village Rohana.

As per the counsel for the petitioner this fact in issue had duly been considered by the Collector while appointing the petitioner as Lambardar.

The Collector has noticed that as per the Naksha Nambardari and the police report, petitioner-Sat Parkash was a resident of village Rohana and

he had a good rapport. This issue was also considered by the Commissioner and despite this fact, the Financial Commissioner has still remanded

the case for verifying the factual position regarding the residential address or status of the petitioner.

While so directing, the Financial Commissioner has observed that it is necessary that Collector as well as the Commissioner should have given

finding about the allegation that the petitioner is resident of village Kharkhoda and not of village Rohana. While so directing, the Financial

Commissioner has apparently failed to minutely peruse the order passed by the Collector, where this issue has been specifically dealt with and so is

the position as would emerge from the order passed by the Commissioner.

Respondent-Sat Pal has filed reply and the counsel appearing for him has defended the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. The

counsel contends that it is more appropriate for the petitioner to plead his case before the Collector where it now stands remanded to show that he

is the resident of village instead of challenging the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, through the present writ petition. I do not see any

substance in this submission made by the counsel for the respondent. The counsel then submits that the petitioner is not resident of village Rohana.

His name is reflected in the Voters'' List of village Kharkhoda and further that the petitioner has been able to create documents that too after the

date of submitting application for appointment to the Post of Lambardar. On the other hand, perusal of the order passed by the Collector would

show that he has relied upon and made reference to the report given by the police and on Naksha Nambardari which clearly shows that the

petitioner is the resident of village concerned. Still, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has connived with the

revenue staff and other to manipulate and fabricate the record in regard about his residence which cannot be relied upon.

All these pleas, either should have been raised before the Collector or the Commissioner and if raised obviously ought to have been pressed, if

not pressed they will deemed to be have been rejected. Accordingly, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner cannot be sustained. He has

decided to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Collector without much justification. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner is

set aside and that passed by the Collector and Commissioner are restored and maintained. Before concluding, I would wish to observe that the

counsel for the respondent has not been able to restrain himself while making the submissions and time and again interrupted the Court while the

order was being dictated. It is hoped that he would desist from adopting such a practice and would maintain discipline while arguing the cases

before the Courts, in future. May wise sense prevail upon him.

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.