Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Punjab and Haryana HC led by Justice Augustine George Masih did not allow a petition on the grounds of it being infructuous.
An order passed by Collector, Patiala, Divisional Commissioner of Patiala and the Financial Commissioner of Punjab appointed a Jagtar Singh herby referred to as respondent 5 as the Lambardar of Basma Village, Patiala. This order was challenged by the petitioner claiming that respondent 5 had defrauded the official respondents. The respondent 5 showed that he had bought a piece of land from a sale deed with the intention of fulfilling the eligibility criteria of the Lambardar post. The petitioner claims that he had sold the land to someone else on 17/01/2011. The petitioner thus claimed that under these conditions, Jagtar Singh should be removed from the post of the Lambardar.
The opposing counsel submitted a countered that on the date of the Respondent 5’s appointment as Lambardar, he was indeed eligible for the post. Hence the claiming of the appointment as illegal was baseless. Also, the District Collector had removed the respondent 5 from the position of Lambardar and hence the whole petition could be termed as infructuous.
Considering the submissions made by the parties, the Court observed that if the question pertained to the illegality of the appointment, it could not be held since on the date of appointment, Jagtar Singh was eligible for the post of a Lambardar. Even if the process was faulty, the Divisional Collector had the power to remove him. The petition was considered infructuous since the act of his removal had already been done.
Satnam Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Civil Writ Petition No. 26958 of 2015
86540
103860
630
114
59824