1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3733 OF 2009. 1. BANDU SHRIRAM DONGRE R/O.HATURN, TAH. BALAPUR, DIST. AKOLA. .. PETITIONER/S. VERSUS 1. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, AMRAVATI DIVISION, AMRAVATI. 2. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, AKOLA. 3. SECRETARY GRAMPANCHAYAT HATURN. 4. YUSUF SHAHA BISMILLASHAHA, R/O.HATURN, DISTT. AKOLA. .. RESPONDENT/S. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri S.D. Chopde, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 02, 2009. 1. This petition by a disgruntled member of Gram Panchayat is directed against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, allowing appeal filed by respondent No.4 and thereby setting aside disqualification of respondent No.4 ordered by the Additional Collector. The petitioner had, among other things, alleged that respondent No.4 had transported six bags of bleaching powder for the Gram Panchayat in his truck, for which he was paid Rs.200/- by voucher No.40 on 2 30th June, 2007. The allegation about purchase of articles for Urdu School had been made by the petitioner was not pressed before the Additional Collector himself. Respondent No.4 had denied that he was dealing in business of transportation. 2. The Additional Commissioner has rightly held that though the name of respondent No.4 appears in the cash book, it does not mean that respondent No.4 had actually received any money for transportation of goods since the signatures were widely different. It has also to be seen that when respondent No.4 denied signature on the voucher no attempt was made to tender other evidence to show that respondent No.4 did, in fact, transport bleaching powder which could have been done by producing record about ownership of the truck, people who saw bleaching powder transported by respondent No.4, also the people who saw Respondent No.4 receiving money from the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the view taken by the Additional Commissioner cannot be said to be erroneous. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR.