1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3539 OF 2011 (Raju Natthuji Kedar vs. The Additional 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. Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. T. Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Shri M.Y. Wadodkar, Advocate for the respondent no.4. --------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : AUGUST 11, 2011 The above petition takes exception to the order dated 8/7/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Additional Collector came to be dismissed. After the elections to the Gram Panchayat, Shirajgaon Kasba had taken place on 28/4/2011, the respondent no.4 herein had filed a 2 complaint seeking disqualification of the petitioner under Section 14(1)((h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 on the ground that he was a defaulter in respect of payment of taxes of the Gram Panchayat on the date when he filed the nomination form. It was the case of the respondent no.4 that a demand bill came to be issued to the petitioner on 9/7/2009, which was received by the mother of the petitioner on 14/7/2009 and that in spite of the demand bill, the petitioner had not paid the amount in respect of taxes. In the said proceedings, the petitioner had filed a reply, inter alia, contending that the taxes in question were paid on 9/4/2010 and had produced receipt for the same. The Additional Collector had called for the relevant record from the Gram Panchayat pursuant to which the receipt book was produced by the concerned officials of the Gram Panchayat. The receipt book, inter alia, contains two receipts – one dated 9/4/2010 and the second one dated 23/4/2010. Pertinently, the second receipt dated 23/4/2010 was issued for the taxes paid for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 whereas the receipt dated 9/4/2010 was only 3 for the year 2010-11. The Additional Collector on the basis of the said material came to a conclusion that the petitioner was in fact a defaulter on the date when he filed the nomination form as prima facie from the two receipts, it could be seen that the petitioner had in fact paid the amount on 23/4/2010. The Additional Collector, therefore, by his order dated 31/1/2011 disqualified the petitioner. The petitioner took exception to the said order passed by the Additional Collector by filing an Appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the findings of the Additional Collector and rejected the said Appeal. However, the Additional Commissioner has erroneously mentioned the year 2009 instead of the year 2010 in his order. This Court for satisfying itself had asked the learned Assistant Government Pleader to produce the original receipt book. The original receipt book was accordingly produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. On perusal, it can be seen that the receipt dated 23/4/2010 is a carbon copy of the original receipt that was issued. It is also pertinent to 4 note that the said receipt is in respect of the taxes paid for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11. Though the said receipt is cancelled, significantly the signature of the person, who has cancelled and the date on which it was cancelled, are conspicuously absent. In juxtaposition, if the receipt dated 9/4/2010 is seen, the white copy, which is supposed to be the carbon copy, is written in ball pen. In the corner of the said receipt, the figure (II) appears and significantly, the said receipt is only for the year 2010-11. Prima facie on perusal of the two receipts, one can reach a conclusion that the said receipt dated 9/4/2010 is prepared later on, just to bring the petitioner out of the clutches of being a defaulter and being disqualified under Section 14(1)(h) of the said Act. There is also no justification forthcoming as to why there are two receipts. Hence, after perusing the said receipt book produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, one cannot say that the findings recorded by the Authorities below are unjustified or unwarranted. The said findings recorded on the basis of the record produced by the officials of the Gram Panchayat 5 cannot, therefore, be said to be perverse. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE khj