JUDGMENT - W.M. SAMBRE, President :---Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, Wardha, the appellant has come in appeal. His grievance is that the respondent is a trust duly registered under the Public Charitable Trusts Act. the respondent has requested for shifting the electric line passing through its layout. Therefore, the board prepared the estimates and the respondent was directed to deposit Rs. 2600/- initially. The understanding was also given that in case the expenditure is reduced board will return or refund the amount to respondent. From the record, it appears that the Deputy Engineer declined to give a copy of the estimate. 2. It is the case of the respondent that the actual work done was for half a day which does not cost than Rs. 200/-. Therefore, he wants the refund of Rs. 2400/- from the appellant. The case of the appellant is that the estimate is the document of the office and, therefore, a copy of the said estimate cannot be supplied. The appellant further contended that the actual expenditure was incurred to the extent of Rs. 2134/- and, therefore, the refund order of Rs. 466/- was passed in favour of the respondent-complainant, and the cheque to that effect was also issued. 3. The learned District Forum has considered the affidavit of the Supervisor of the board, plan placed on record and the other document and has come to the conclusion that the statement made by the appellant as regards the shifting of electric line on 27-9-1991 is not correct as the map Ex. 21 itself shows that the date is 16-10-1991. The case of the complainant was that the work was completed on 21-7-1991 and the expenditure on shifting of electric line as alleged by the board was not worth Rs. 2,134/-. It appears from the record that the expenditure incurred on shifting of electric line cannot be more than Rs. 400/- or nearabout. From the admission of the representative of the board it is seen that the poles were not replaced by the board and the original pole has been used and re-fixed at some distance. Therefore the expenditure shown to have been incurred by the board is to the extent of Rs, 2134/- on account of pole itself falsifies the case of the appellant. The notice was issued to the complainant on 21-4-1992 and thereafter 22-10-1992. Therefore the expenditure shown to have been incurred by the board is to the extent of Rs, 2134/- on account of pole itself falsifies the case of the appellant. The notice was issued to the complainant on 21-4-1992 and thereafter 22-10-1992. It was not replied by the opposite party with an intention to cover up the expenditure of Rs. 2600/-. From the record, it appears that the appellant was not clear as to how much the actual expenditure has been incurred. No documentary evidence has been produced in respect of their contention. It is true that the charges has been levied on the material cost and labour. Under these circumstances, the view taken by the learned District Forum directing the appellant to refund Rs. 2000/- with interest to the respondent is perfectly right. In the circumstances, the order appears to be perfectly right and need to interference with the order of the Learned District Forum, and therefore this appeal fails and stands dismissed. No costs. *****