Present:- Mr. Ranjit Saini Advocate Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1126228
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-03-2014
AppellantPresent:- Mr. Ranjit Saini Advocate
RespondentFinancial Commissioner, Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
rathore poonam 2014.02.13 11:17 in the high court of punjab and haryana at i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh l.p.a.no.1149 of 2013 (o&m) date of decision:-03.02.2014 joginder singh ....appellant versus financial commissioner, haryana and others ....respondents *** coram:- hon'ble mr.justice hemant gupta hon'ble mr.justice fateh deep singh *** present:- mr.ranjit saini, advocate, for the appellant. ms.shubhra singh, dag, haryana, for respondents no.1 to 3. mr.vineet chaudhary, advocate, for respondent no.4. *** hemant gupta, j. (oral) the present letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 2.4.2013, whereby the writ petition challenging the appointment of the present appellant as a lambardar was allowed and the matter remanded to the district collector to decide the case at an early date after giving an opportunity of hearing to the necessary parties in accordance with law. the learned collector appointed the present appellant as lambardar which appointment was not interfered with in appeal by the commissioner and further by the financial commissioner. the learned single judge allowed the writ petition for the reason that the appellant is of 75 years of age as against respondent no.4, who was 48 years of age and rathore poonam 2014.02.13 11:17 l.p.a.no.1149 of 2013 (o&m) i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document remanded the matter to financial commissioner for reconsideration. learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the age is not the relevant criteria for appointment of lambardar and once, the authorities under the statute have exercised the discretion in particular manner, the same could not have been interfered with by the learned single bench. since the matter has been remitted back to the collector, we do not wish to comment upon comparative merit of the present appellant and respondent no.4. the district collector shall consider the comparative merit and appoint a suitable person as lambardar unmindful of the findings recorded by the learned single judge, but in accordance with law. in view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned single judge. however, the matter regarding appointment be decided expeditiously. the present appeal stands disposed of accordingly. ( hemant gupta ) judge february 03, 2014 ( fateh deep singh) poonam judge
Judgment:

Rathore Poonam 2014.02.13 11:17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH L.P.A.No.1149 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision:-03.02.2014 Joginder Singh ....Appellant versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others ....Respondents *** CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH *** Present:- Mr.Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for the appellant.

Ms.Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr.Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

*** Hemant Gupta, J.

(Oral) The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 2.4.2013, whereby the writ petition challenging the appointment of the present appellant as a Lambardar was allowed and the matter remanded to the District Collector to decide the case at an early date after giving an opportunity of hearing to the necessary parties in accordance with law.

The learned Collector appointed the present appellant as Lambardar which appointment was not interfered with in appeal by the Commissioner and further by the Financial Commissioner.

The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition for the reason that the appellant is of 75 years of age as against respondent No.4, who was 48 years of age and Rathore Poonam 2014.02.13 11:17 L.P.A.No.1149 of 2013 (O&M) I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document remanded the matter to Financial Commissioner for reconsideration.

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the age is not the relevant criteria for appointment of Lambardar and once, the Authorities under the Statute have exercised the discretion in particular manner, the same could not have been interfered with by the learned Single Bench.

Since the matter has been remitted back to the Collector, we do not wish to comment upon comparative merit of the present appellant and respondent No.4.

The District Collector shall consider the comparative merit and appoint a suitable person as Lambardar unmindful of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, but in accordance with law.

In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

However, the matter regarding appointment be decided expeditiously.

The present appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE February 03, 2014 ( FATEH DEEP SINGH) poonam JUDGE