HARSUNJIT SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated May 30, 2007 (Annexure P-7) passed by Financial Commissioner vide which order dated July 21, 2005 (Annexure P-6) passed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division confirming the order dated May 25, 2004 (Annexure P-5) passed by Collector appointing the petitioner as Lambardar has been remanded for fresh decision.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case as mentioned in the writ petition are that on the death of Lambardar of village Khanpur Khiara, the process to fill-up the vacancy of the Lambardar was initiated and proclamation was made in the village calling applications from the willing candidates. Total 22 applications were received. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Naib Tehsildar, one candidate died and one was proceeded ex parte as he was not present. After completion of necessary formalities, the Naib Tehsildar recommended name of the petitioner to Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Before the District Collector, 16 candidates withdrew their candidature in favour of the petitioner as well as private respondent No. 2 and only the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were left in the field. The Collector appointed the petitioner as Lambardar vide order dated May 25, 2004. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the Commissioner which was dismissed and order of the Collector was upheld. Still feeling dissatisfied, respondent No. 2 filed revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, who after hearing the counsel for the parties, remanded the case for fresh decision on the ground that the District Collector has failed to give finding about the procedure adopted for appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar as he had applied for the post of Lambardar after the expiry of last date fixed for receiving the applications. It has also been mentioned in the remand order that the case was fixed for consideration of the applications of all the candidates on 26.5.2003, but the Naib Tehsildar suo motu ordered for fresh Munadi without taking prior permission from the District Collector, who is the competent authority to order for proclamation and no finding has been recorded by the Collector on this issue.

(3.) WRITTEN statement has been filed by respondent No. 2 which is on record. In the written statement, it has been pleaded that the Financial Commissioner has rightly remanded the case for fresh decision as the date of Munadi was extended in order to accommodate the petitioner and no permission was sought from the District Collector who is the competent authority to order for proclamation. Moreover, the Collector has not recorded any finding with regard to extension of date and, as such, the finding recorded by the Collector is perverse, contrary to law and is liable to be set aside.