news details |
|
|
| HC dismisses petition challenging election of substitute Lambardar | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Apr 14: Petition filed by Jagdish Kumar Lambardar Jandrore challenging election for the substitute Lambardar, Justice JP Singh said that petitioner’s conduct of participating in the election process has been admitted by the petitioner to be fair and transparent, do not find any case for interference in the appointment of Mohan Raj as Substitute Lambardar.
Bhagat Ram’s disablement to discharge functions of village head-Lambardar Jandrore, resulted in the appointment of his son Jagidsh Kumar petitioner as substitute Lambardar. Dissatisfied with the petitioner’s functioning as substitute Lambardar, peoples of the area make various representations to the state functionaries seeking his removal. Acting on representations, Revenue Minister directed conduct of election of fresh Lambardar by secret ballot. The election was conducted in which the petitioner too participated. Private respondent Mohan Raj having polled 215 votes and was declared elected, the petitioner could poll only 164 votes. On the basis of the result of the election Mohan Raj was accordingly appointed as Lambardar Jandrore, a petition filed challenging the election notice.
Justice JP Singh after hearing Adv DS Thakur appearing for the petitioners whereas AAG AH Qazi and Adv ML Gupta appeared for state and private respondent, observed that there was no need to hold election to appoint a substitute Lambardar as Tehsildar was competent to make such appointment, yet undertaking of election process, may not effect the appointment of private respondent particularly when the petitioner had not only participated in the election process for appointment of substitute Lambardar but had also given in writing along with others present at the time of the election that the election process was transparent and fear. Having lost the election and accepted the will of the people of the area in selecting private respondent as substitute Lambardar for village Jandrore, petitioner may not be entitled to question the appointment of private respondent. With these observations Court dismissed the petition. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
