1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 86 OF 2010 (Vitthal G. Kurekar ...versus... Addl. Commissioner and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 31, 2010. Heard Mr. S.W.Sambre, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G.G.Bade, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Mr. Adgokar, the learned AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2. The petitioner sought disqualification of respondent no.3 on the ground that he has received an amount of Rs.5000/- from Gram Panchayat for the work allegedly done, though his brother is Up-Sarpanch. The application was considered by the Assistant Collector, Chandrapur and he recorded that Cash Register disclosed payment of Rs.5,175/- to the brother of respondent no.3 and both the brothers were joint in residence. The defence of respondent no.3 that his brother did not receive that amount and a false voucher was prepared in the name of his brother, was not accepted. His defence that his brother does not owe tractor and trolly with No. MH-34/1088 and MWY-2714 was also not accepted. The Assistant Collector noticed that the contract was given to one Bablu Satpute and an amount of Rs.19,975/- was paid to him. The balance amount of Rs.5,175/- was paid to the brother of 2 respondent no.3. The respondent no.3 filed an appeal and in the appeal, the Additional Commissioner has found that the voucher on record reveal payment of amount of Rs.5,000/- to the brother of respondent no.3 and it also found that there was no contract executed between said brother and Gram Panchayat. It appears that he also questioned the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, who executed the payment to said brother, but could not explain the work for that payment to him. The Additional Commissioner has, therefore, allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent. Mr. Sambre, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Additional Commissioner has allowed the appeal only because of the police complaint made by the brother of respondent no.3, disputing his signature on the voucher. He further states that joint residence of two brothers, record of Gram Panchayat showing payment and admission of Secretary that amount was so paid, was all ignored. Mr. Bade, the learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Mr. Adgokar, the learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 support the impugned order. Mr. Bade points out that the said payment is not towards any contract executed by the contractor Bablu Satpute, who has moved Gram Panchayat for releasing the balance payment of Rs.5000/-. It is apparent that the question whether an amount of Rs.5000/- was received by the brother of 3 respondent no.3 was the disputed question. No material sufficient to fasten that liability on said brother has been brought on record. The Cash Register shows payment of Rs.5,175/- to the brother of respondent no.3 while voucher is of Rs.5175/-. In this situation, I do not find anything wrong with the appreciation of the facts by the respondent no.1 Additional Commissioner. No case is, therefore, made out warranting any interference in the matter in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE Diwale