Two identical writ petitions challenged an order creating additional Lambardar posts in a small village. The court held the petitions were misconceived, found no prejudice or illegality, and emphasized revenue authorities determine post requirements.
Both writ petitions stood dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
Civil Writ Petition No. 14538 of 2016 Civil Writ Petition No. 14539 of 2016 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 14538 of 2016 Date of Decision: 25.7.2016
Harminder Singh and another
.....Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 14539 of 2016
Harminder Singh and another
.....Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present : Mr.G.S. Punia, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Harveen Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Jasjit Singh, Advocate for the caveator.
AMIT KUMAR 2016.07.26 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Civil Writ Petition No. 14538 of 2016 Civil Writ Petition No. 14539 of 2016 2
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL)
These two identical writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 14538 and 14539 of 2016 are being decided together vide this common order, as both these petitions are against the same impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner creating two more posts of Lambardar, one for Scheduled Caste and another for General Category.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that right from the year 1943, only one Lambardar had been performing duties for the entire population of the village. He further submits that since it was a small village, no necessity was felt for creating additional posts of Lambardar. When such demand was raised by the residents of the village, same was declined by the authorities concerned in the year 1983 vide Annexure P-3. He concluded by submitting that since the respondent authorities have failed to appreciate the true fact situation while passing the impugned orders, the same are liable to be set aside. He prays for setting aside the impugned orders, by allowing both these writ petitions.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners at considerable length, careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders have since not been found suffering from any patent illegality or perversity, same deserve to be upheld and both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
It has gone undisputed before this Court that since the year 1943, only one Lambardar, presently the petitioner, had been working in the village. It cannot be denied that since 1943 till date, population of theAMIT KUMAR 2016.07.26 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Civil Writ Petition No. 14538 of 2016 Civil Writ Petition No. 14539 of 2016 3
village would have increased manifolds.
During the course of the hearing, learned senior counsel for the petitioners could not point out any prejudice which might have been caused to the petitioners, by passing of the impugned orders, creating one additional post for Scheduled Caste and another post for General Category. Further, it is the job of the revenue authorities to assess the requirement of number of posts of Lambardar in any particular village.
It is also not pleaded or argued case on behalf of the petitioners that any provision of law has been violated by the respondent authorities, while passing the impugned orders. If additional posts of Lambardar have been created, as per norms, strictly following the relevant provisions of law, no fault can be found with the orders passed by the revenue authorities. In fact, in such a situation, petitioners would not have any locus standi to oppose the creation of any additional post/s of Lambardar.
At this stage, learned senior counsel for the petitioners points out that the Commissioner, Patiala Division, vide his earlier order dated 24.8.2015 (Annexure P-7), declined the request to create additional posts of Lambardar pointing out that there was no such requirement. Even if it is accepted, such order would not be a bar to reconsider the matter in the larger interest of the villagers, particularly when it does not cause any kind of prejudice to the petitioners.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that both the writ petitions are wholly misconceived, bereft
AMIT KUMAR 2016.07.26 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Civil Writ Petition No. 14538 of 2016 Civil Writ Petition No. 14539 of 2016 4
of merit and without any substance, thus, these must fail. No case for interference has been made out.
With the abovesaid observations made, both the writ petitions stand dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
25.7.2016 Ak Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned/non-speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
AMIT KUMAR 2016.07.26 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should set aside the Financial Commissioner's order creating additional Lambardar posts in a small village.
Whether the petitioners have locus standi to oppose the creation of additional administrative posts.
Whether the impugned orders suffer from patent illegality or perversity.
Harminder Singh
The State of Punjab
Rameshwar Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
