1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 363 OF 2010 Deepak Narayan Wasu -: versus :- Sau. Sheelatai Manohar Mangate 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 : APRIL 13, 2010. Heard Shri R.D. Pawar, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri C.A. Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned A.G.P for respondent no.3. Petitioner challenges order dated 23.10.2009 passed by the Additional Collector, Akola holding that as the meeting of Gram Sabha dated 26.11.2008 has been duly held, respondent no.1 Sarpanch does not stand disqualified. Shri Pawar, learned counsel contends that the proceeding of meeting are clearly fabricated and he invites attention to the evidence of Secretary to substantiate his stand. He further points out that the meeting is shown to have been conducted in the school premises during school hours. According to him, the meeting could not have been held in school premises during school hours and as proceedings are fabricated this position has appeared on record. He also points out that the earlier meetings were also conducted in the school premises, but then were after school hours. 2 Shri Joshi, learned counsel and learned A.G.P. appearing for respective respondents, support the impugned order. Shri Joshi, learned counsel states that evidence of Secretary no where shows that the meeting dated 26.11.2008 were not held in school premises. He further states that if any fabrication was to be done, time also could have been placed appropriately. The Authority below has after considering the evidence of Secretary and also records which show that on earlier occasion school premises have been used to conduct the meeting reached a finding against contentions of petitioner. In this situation the appreciation of evidence by the Additional Collector cannot be regarded as erroneous or perverse. No case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.