KARAM SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, APPEALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the decisions taken by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority by terms of which the appointment of the petitioner as a Lambardar by the Collector was not found favour with by the Appellate and the Revisional Authority on a point to point comparison which they made with reference to a candidate who was selected by the Collector.

(2.) The selection by the Collector was driven by consideration that the other candidate, who among eight candidates was politically connected and that he would not be able to devote time for work. He did not own any property in the Village. The Appellate Authority found that the Collector had taken into view matters which were not relevant and the appellant who was a graduate and was younger in age was to be preferred against the petitioner who was 60 years of age and who was not a graduate. The Revisional Authority also addressed specifically on a contention raised by the petitioner that the private respondent who was selected, although had contested an election had given an affidavit declaring that he was not associated with any political party and the District Collector had ignored the affidavit mentioning a declaration of not having connection with any political party. As regards the property qualification which the Collector found against the respondent, the Revisional Authority stated that there was no such qualification relating to possession of property.

(3.) Learned counsel relies on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Jog Dhian Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, reported in 2005 (2) PLR 306 that the decision of the Collector ought to obtain primacy in the matter of consideration of the selection of a person as Lambardar. The Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority ought not to have, according to the petitioner, set aside the decision taken by the Collector. In my view, the decision of the Division Bench must be understood in the context of how under normal circumstances the decision of the Collector shall not be interfered. The judicial Intervention of a decision of the Collector found expressed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority will become possible only if the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority whose decisions are challenged before this Court have taken into consideration matters which are irrelevant or impermissible under the scheme of the relevant Act and the Rules that make possible the appointment of the Lambardar. Before the Revisional Authority, the point has been specifically urged were that the private respondent had been politically connected and had no property qualification. Both the issues have been considered and ultimately the decision has been rendered. Judicial intervention will not be possible only because yet another view is also possible. The test shall, however, be whether the decision challenged suffers from any legal vice. In my view, the order passed by the Revisional authority while affirming the view of the Appellate Authority does not leave out of consideration any thing that was relevant for consideration. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.