Civil Writ Petition No. 22528 of 2011. Case: Satpal Vs State of Punjab and Others. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | Civil Writ Petition No. 22528 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Suresh Singla, Additional A.G., Punjab for State and Ms. Amandeep Soni, Advocate |
| Judges | Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. |
| Issue | Arms Act 1959 - Sections 25, 27; Constitution of India - Articles 226, 227; Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (IPC) - Sections 148, 149, 307, 336 |
| Citation | 2013 (171) PLR 667, 2013 (3) RCR 251 (Civil) |
| Judgement Date | April 01, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.
-
The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 1.6.2011 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Financial Commissioner, thereby upholding the order dated 26.2.2007 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division and also the order dated 27.7.2006 (Annexure P-1), passed by the District Collector, Hoshiarpur, appointing respondent No. 5 as Lambardar. Brief facts of the case are that a new post of Scheduled@ Caste Lambardar was created in the village of the parties. Proceedings were initiated to fill up this post. As many as four candidates applied. Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur, recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lambardar whereas the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hoshiarpur recommended the name of Malkit Singh. After examining the comparative merits of all the four candidates, the District Collector, Hoshiarpur, appointed respondent No. 5-Banarasi Dass as Scheduled Caste Lambardar, vide his order dated 27.7.2006 (Annexure P-1). Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed his appeal before the Commissioner, who dismissed the same vide order dated 26.2.2007 (Annexure P-10) and revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, vide his order dated 1.6.2011 (Annexure P-11).
-
Thus, feeling aggrieved against the above said impugned orders passed by the respondent revenue authorities, petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned orders. He further sought a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner as Lambardar of the village in place of respondent No. 5. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.
-
Vide order dated 5.12.2011, notice of motion was issued by this Court and operation of the impugned orders Annexures P-1, P-10 and P-11 was stayed. Pursuant to the notice of motion having been issued, written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No. 5.
-
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the District Collector was suffering from patent illegality and perversity for the reason that respondent No. 5 was 62 years of age, as per his own showing vide his affidavit dated 23.5.2006 (Annexure P-9). In spite of this fact, the District Collector committed serious error of law while altogether ignoring this relevant age factor of respondent No. 5 while appointing him as Lambardar. He further submits that the resolution dated 21.3.2005 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Gram Panchayat of the village as well as the show cause notice dated 26.4.2005 (Annexure P-7), issued by the Block Development and Panchayat officer to respondent No. 5, for removal of his illegal encroachment on the public path, i.e. phirni, has also not been discussed by the District Collector while appointing respondent No. 5 as...
To continue reading
Request your trial