Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 12.10.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 4950 of 2011) filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 13.1.2011 (Annexure P -6) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals -I), Punjab, remanding the matter to the Collector to decide the matter afresh, has been dismissed.
(2.) THOUGH there is delay of 40 days in filing this appeal and the appellant has filed an application (CM No. 6340 of 2011) for condoning the delay, but we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits, and gone through the impugned order, passed by the learned Single Judge, as well as the orders passed by the authorities below. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that though the appellant has no hesitation to appear before the Collector for fresh decision of the case regarding appointment of Lambardar, but he is aggrieved against the observation made by the Financial Commissioner to the effect that the appellant is not a fit person to be appointed as Lambardar. Learned counsel argued that after remand, let the Collector decide the matter afresh, after considering the merits and de -merits of all the candidates, including the appellant, without being influenced by any observation made by the Financial Commissioner in the order dated 13.1.2011 (Annexure P -6). The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant appears to be reasonable.
(3.) IN view of the above, this appeal is dismissed, with the clarification that any observation made by the Financial Commissioner in the order dated 13.1.2011 (Annexure P -6) regarding the appellant will not influence the mind of the Collector, while taking fresh decision on the appointment of Lambardar.;