SARDOOL SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and the third respondent were contenders for the office of the Village Lambardar. The Collector selected the third respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal. The appeal was accepted by the Commissioner. The order passed by the Commissioner having been reversed by the Finance Commissioner, the petitioner has approached this court through the present writ petition.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Ravinder Chopra, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner is younger in age. He is better qualified and has more land than the respondent. Thus, the Financial Commissioner has erred in interfering with the order passed by the Commissioner. Is it so ?

(3.) WE find that the view taken by the Financial Commissioner is just and fair. It is true that on weighing the respective merits, an authority may be able to take a view different from the one taken by the competent authority. Yet, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution would be warranted only if there is a patent error leading to failure of justice or violation of law. In the present case the view taken by the Collector and the Financial Commissioner is a possible one. It is reasonable. They could have thought that a person, who has been elected as a Panch by the village community, would be better suited to look after the affairs of the village than another, who had not been so elected.