1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : N A G P U R. WRIT PETITION NO. 975 OF 2008 Sou. Manoramabai Narayanrao Pawar, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Ghuikhed, r/o Ghuikhed, Tq. Chandur Railway, District Amravati. ... PETITIONER.  VERSUS - 1. Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. 2. Secretary, Gram Panchayat,Ghuikhed, Tq. Chandur Railway, District Amravati. 3. Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat,Ghuikhed, Tq. Chandur Railway, District Amravati. 4. Chairman, Panchayat Samiti, Chandur Railway, District Amravati 5. Pravin Ghuikhedkar, r/o Ghuikhed, Tq. Chandur Railway, District Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS. 2 Mr.P.S. Patil Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A. M. Deshpande , A.G.P., for Respondent no.1. .,... CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 23.06.2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : Rule. Heard forthwith finally by consent of parties. 2. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. On 16.6.2008 this petition was heard for quite sometime and the learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out to me page 20 of the writ petition which is printed copy. It was vehemently argued on 16.6.2008 as well as today that the notice of resignation shows the date 29.2.2007 and that was being given as 29.3.2007. Acting on this argument, I asked A.G.P. to take instructions as to how there is a marked difference of one month, which appears to be suspicious. Today I have seen the xerox copy of page 20 of the petition- notice of resignation (Annexure-III) and I 3 find that the said date 29.2.2007 printed is not correct but the same is 29.3.2007. The xerox copy thereof is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. This is nothing but casual attitude on the part of the petitioner in filing the documents with the petition and building up an argument on non-existent material. Hence, at the outset, the counsel for the petitioner is directed to pay cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One thousand) to the office of Government Pleader, Nagpur, within one week from today. 3. Now coming to the merits of the matter, all the while it has been the case of the petitioner that the so- called resignation was in fact a forged and fabricated document inasmuch as her signature was taken on a blank paper by one Pravin Ghuikhedkar telling the petitioner that it was meant for making representation for rehabilitation. The resignation was however prepared on the said blank paper where her signature was taken and, therefore, the same was clearly a forged document. Law is well settled 4 that the person who alleges fraud has to plead and prove the same before the proper court/authority. In the instant case, the petitioner did not even enter witness box nor examined any witness to prove the alleged fraud/forgery and, therefore, in my opinion, the burden of proof to prove fraud/forgery was never discharged. In the absence of the petitioner discharging the said burden of proof, the respondents were not obliged to counter anything. The authorities below have rightly found that there was no material whatsoever on record regarding the alleged fraud/forgery and therefore refused to accept the case of the petitioner. I do not find any fault with the impugned order. Findings of fact recorded by the authorities below cannot be interfered with. In support of his arguments, Mr.Patil relied on the decisions of this court (i) Kumudini Ratilal Bhagat v. State of Maharashtra - 1987 Mh.L.J. 462 and (ii) Ravindra Bhaskar Lumpataki v. Chairman, Gram Panchayat Samiti, Rahata - 2006(6) Mh.L.J. 747. 5 Both these judgments relate to withdrawal of resignation after they were given. Here the case is not of withdrawal of resignation but is one of fraud and forgery. Both the judgments are clearly distinguishable with the present case. There is no substance in the writ petition. Writ petition dismissed. Mr.P.S. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, promises to be careful in future. JUDGE /TA/