Allowed

Sahab Singh v. Commissioner Patiala Divn. & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Jul 2012CWP/12495/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order of dismissal regarding the appointment of a Lambardar. The court held that passing such an adverse order without hearing the petitioner violated the principle of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner to decide it after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the State.

Sahab Singh Vs Commissioner Patiala… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 12495 of 2011

¶3

Date of decision : 24.07.2012

Sahab Singh

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

The Commissioner Patiala Division and others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶10

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present: Ms. Loveleen Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. Yatinder Sharma DAG, Punjab for the State.

¶15

Mr. F.S. Virk, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

¶16

¶17

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶18

The petitioner was appointed as Lambardar of village Ibrahimpur, Tehsil and District Patiala by the Collector on 27.07.2010. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal against the same, which has been allowed by the Commissioner and the case remanded back to the Collector with the direction to initiate fresh process to fill up the post of Lambardar after doing fresh Munadi and after calling for fresh application. The grievance of the petitioner is that this order adverse to the interest of the petitioner has been passed by the Commissioner without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. Counsel, accordingly, plead violation of principle of natural justice.

¶19

Notice of motion was issued. No reply has been filed. In view of the limited nature of controversy involved in this case, there

¶20

Civil Writ Petition No. 12495 of 2011

¶21

-2-

¶22

would hardly be any need to get reply from the respondents. Short and crisp plea of counsel for the petitioner is that impugned order was passed in violation of principle of natural justice. If any order adverse to the interest of the petitioner is to be passed, he certainly ought to have been heard. This opportunity was denied to the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained as having been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. The same is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Commissioner to re-decide the case of appointment after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent would also be entitled to opportunity of hearing. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Commissioner on

¶23

27.08.2012.

¶24

The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶25

July 24, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE

Sahab Singh v. Commissioner Patiala Divn. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahab Singh v. Commissioner Patiala Divn. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurcharan Singh etc. Vs State of Pb. etc.

Geeta Devi Vs Municipal Corporation Bathinda and Ors.

Naib Singh Vs Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.

Jatinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Angrej Singh Vs State of Haryana etc.

Shamsher Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.