1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. L. P. A. NO. 448 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3539 OF 2011 Raju Natthuji Kedar vs. Addl Commissioner Amravati Dn. & Ors. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri M. I. Dhatrak Adv for petitioner. Shri Yengal AGP for respondents. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 08, 2011. Heard Shri Dhatrak learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner, learned AGP for respondents 1 and 2. Learned Single Judge has found two receipts i.e. dated 09.04.2010 and 23.04.2010 for the payment of tax and accepted the finding reached concurrently by Additional Collector and by Additional Commissioner that tax was actually paid on 23.04.2010. The petitioner has brought on record only the date on which election has been held. That date is 28.04.2010. The relevant date is the last date of filing nomination and that date is no where pleaded. Obviously that date has to be prior to 23.04.2010. 2 Learned counsel has attempted to urge that Secretary of Grampanchayat was in the habit of tampering with records and he wants to invite our attention to conduct by Grampanchayat or some subsequent event in this respect. We find that such plea was not raised either before the Additional Commissioner or before Additional Collector. Even if we accept that before Additional Collector petitioner/appellant was not aware of such fabrication, in appeal there ought to have been a plea that Secretary or then some other political rival of appellant has tampered with the date of receipt. The appellant ought to have pleaded that receipt actually dated 09.04.2010 has been tampered with and date has been corrected as 23.04.2010. That is not the pleading any where. In view of this position, it is not possible for this Court in appeal to go into such disputed question of fact. We do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity in the matter. L. P. A. is thus rejected. JUDGE JUDGE svk