SUKHCHAIN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case, the only question involved is as to whether the Financial Commissioner (Respondent No. 1) was well within his jurisdiction while remanding the matter to the Collector to consider afresh candidature of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 for the post of Lambardar on the ground that petitioner is running a shop 6 kms. away from the village, therefore, would not be available to the villagers ?

(2.) Undisputedly, petitioner is resident of the same village, although is stated to have one shop 6 kms. away from the village. Appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lambardar by the Collector ought not to have been disturbed by the Financial Commissioner on the ground that since the petitioner is running a shop 6 kms. away from the village, therefore, he may not be available to the villagers.

(3.) In view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram and others, 2009 1 RCR(Civ) 757, opinion of the Collector in case of the appointment of Lambardar should not be disturbed until and unless, higher authorities or this Court find that the learned Collector has escaped important material or action of the Collector seems to be out of extraneous consideration or Collector has been misled. Learned Financial Commissioner has not recorded any finding that Collector was ever misled by placing irrelevant material or has escaped important material while forming opinion in favour of the petitioner or action of the Collector seems to be out of extraneous consideration. Merely because petitioner is having one shop 6 kms. away from the village is no ground to disturb the finding of the Collector on the basis of apprehension that petitioner may not be available to the villagers. Undisputedly, petitioner is resident of the same village and is residing in the same village, therefore, having shop 6 kms. away from the village would not be a ground to disturb the opinion of the Collector.