The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the appointment of a Lambardar. The court held that the Collector's choice was final and affirmed by the dismissal of the wife's writ petition, rendering the appellant's delayed petition untenable.
Impugned order dismissing the writ petition is affirmed and appeal is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1402 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
LPA No.1402 of 2011 Date of Decision: 13.1.2012
Balkar Singh
..Appellant
Versus
Financial Commissioner and others ..Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present : Mr. G.S.Chahal, Advocate for the appellant.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J
The appellant challenges order dated 14.3.2011 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 8763 of 2009 and orders passed by the revenue authorities appointing respondent no. 4 as a Lambardar.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petition has been dismissed on the sole ground that Civil Writ Petition No. 9938 of 2007 filed by appellant's wife Gurdeep Kaur, has already been dismissed. It is argued that as the petitioner impugns the selection of respondent no.4 on merits, the dismissal of the writ petition filed by his wife, who was also a candidate for the post of Lambardar, can not be a ground, to
dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
We have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1402 of 2011 2
impugned order and orders passed by the revenue authorities appointing respondent no. 4 as Lambardar. The petitioner, his wife, respondent no. 4 and others, were candidates for appointment to the post of Lambardar. The Collector appointed respondent no. 4 as the Lambardar. The appellant and his wife, Gurdeep Kaur, filed separate appeals, before the Commissioner. The appeals were dismissed by a common order. The appellant and his wife filed separate revisions before the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, which were dismissed on 10.1.2005.
Gurdeep Kaur, the petitioner's wife, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 9938 of 2007 challenging these orders. The writ petition was, admittedly, dismissed on 9.7.2007. The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 8763 of 2009, four years after dismissal of the writ petition filed by his wife.
With the dismissal of the writ petition filed by Gurdeep Kaur, who was also a candidate for appointment to the post of a Lambardar, the appointment of respondent no.4 stood affirmed. The petitioner, could not be unaware of this fact but still, filed a writ petition, four years after dismissal of Civil Writ Petition No. 9938 of 2007 and without disclosing this fact. This apart, it is an established principle of law that the choice of the Collector is final till such time as it is demonstratively perverse, arbitrary or contrary to the rules. In the absence of any such error in the orders appointing respondent no.4, as Lambardar and the dismissal of the writ petition filed by another candidate, we find
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1402 of 2011 3
no reason to interfere with the impugned order and dismiss the
appeal accordingly.
( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE
( NARESH KUMAR SANGHI ) 13.1.2012 JUDGE VK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition when his wife, another candidate, had already successfully challenged the same order constitutes a ground for interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Balkar Singh
Financial Commissioner and others
Rajive Bhalla
Naresh Kumar Sanghi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
