Judgment : A.H. Joshi, J. 1] This Letters Patent Appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 2] The Letters Patent Appeal is filed by unsuccessful writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.6533/2012. 3] The proceedings had begun in the premises noted in paras to follow. 4] Respondent no.5 - Sudam Rautrao initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. He prayed for disqualification of Sarpanch - Balaji Ganpati Manmode - present appellant and another member of panchayat. In the application praying for the said relief, he has alleged that the appellant herein had incurred disqualification on account of [i] withdrawal of Rs.17,000/-by cash from the account of the panchayat and failing to account for it; [ii] creating fake and fictitious record of paying by way of loan to the panchayat an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- and recovering the money from the panchayat against construction work by fabricating record. Thereby he has committed misappropriation and/or has interest in the work done for the panchayat. 5] The Additional Collector gave notices to the respondents. The appellant herein submitted reply and opposed the claim. The ground of objection, as seen from the reply, is as follows:- [a] Based on a resolution adopted by the panchayat, the appellant had in fact given by way of advance various amounts to the panchayat, and those advances were duly recorded. [b] The work of construction of the school building was carried out departmentally and the money paid by him was thereafter refunded to him by three cheques. [c] There was no disqualification. [d] The transactions were genuine etc. 6] The Additional Collector decided the complaint by his judgment dated 6.6.2012. He held that the appellant herein is not disqualified and held another member Sachin Laxman Adatrao as disqualified. Sachin Adatrao's disqualification is not a matter of scrutiny. 7] Original complainant i.e. present respondent no.5 carried appeal to the Additional Commissioner u/s 16(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. The appeal was heard on 18.7.2012 and was decided by judgment and order dated 20.7.2012. 8] It is seen from the judgment of the Additional Commissioner that case was heard and the learned Additional Commissioner enquired as to what was the evidence in support of the defence of present appellant. The appeal was heard on 18.7.2012 and was decided by judgment and order dated 20.7.2012. 8] It is seen from the judgment of the Additional Commissioner that case was heard and the learned Additional Commissioner enquired as to what was the evidence in support of the defence of present appellant. Present appellant had sought for time to produce the documents such as cash book, account books, measurement book etc. Learned Additional Commissioner declined to grant time and wanted the record to be produced immediately. He delivered the judgment on 20.7.2012 and held that the appellant herein was disqualified for the reasons incorporated in the judgment and order. 9] The appellant herein submitted an application for review on 25.7.2012. It is urged that efforts were made to produce the record as the Additional Commissioner had granted leave to produce those before the delivery of judgment. In view of delivery of judgment on 20.7.2012, the record could not be produced. The Additional Commissioner has declined to entertain the review on the ground that law does not permit a review. 10] The Writ Petition No.6533/2012 was carried against the order of the Additional Commissioner. The learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the said writ petition. 11] In this Letters Patent Appeal, the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the judgment of the Additional Commissioner are under challenge. 12] The submissions advanced in support of the appeal are summarized as follows:- [a] It is a genuine case of giving advance to the panchayat and taking its refund. [b] Construction work was got done departmentally. Record in that regard is duly maintained. [c] Though the records were not produced either before the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner during hearing, those were produced along with application for review. However, since the case was decided, those could not become part of the record. [d] The record is now produced in the writ petition. [e] The record will show that there is evidence to support the appellant's plea that there is no abuse of authority or misuse of funds or having interest in the work undertaken by the panchayat. [f] The appellant has been met with injustice though the Additional Commissioner granted leave to produce the documents, decided the case hurriedly and the documents in possession of the appellant could not be considered by the Additional Commissioner. [f] The appellant has been met with injustice though the Additional Commissioner granted leave to produce the documents, decided the case hurriedly and the documents in possession of the appellant could not be considered by the Additional Commissioner. 13] Heard both the sides at length and perused the record annexed to the Letters Patent Appeal. 14] Restricted scope in the Letters Patent Appeal would be to find out as to whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from material illegally warranting interference. In the aforesaid background, the points which arise for consideration are:- [i] Whether the appellant had reasonable opportunity to produce the record. [ii] Whether the records sought to be produced at the level of appeal that too by way of application for review was justified. [iii] Do the records reflect any merit in order to tilt the balance of justice in favour of the appellant to have his case remanded for fresh hearing and decision in accordance with law. 15] Point no.[i] :- It is seen that opportunity to produce the record was available to the appellant before the Additional Collector. Production was not done. A simplicitor plea of denial was taken for the first time before the learned Single Judge of this Court in the writ petition. In fact, the manner in which the work was done from time to time and as to the mode with which the payments were made and refund was received, was required to be proved before the Additional Collector who was / is the first and fact finding Tribunal. Failure of the appellant to produce the said record would always be construed adverse to the appellant. No explanation is offered as to why record was not produced before the Additional Collector. In the given situation, it would not be possible for this Court to hold that the appellant did not get opportunity of producing the record before the first authority i.e. the Additional Collector. 16] Point no.[ii]:- It is seen even from the version of the appellant contained in the application for review that the occasion of production of record before the Additional Commissioner arose only after the question of production of record was raised by the Additional Commissioner by way of a query. 16] Point no.[ii]:- It is seen even from the version of the appellant contained in the application for review that the occasion of production of record before the Additional Commissioner arose only after the question of production of record was raised by the Additional Commissioner by way of a query. It is not the plea of the appellant that he wanted to produce the record, however, it was declined while before the Additional Collector or during hearing before the Additional Commissioner. More over, a specific request for deferring the hearing for a day or two urging that the records would be produced was not made. At this stage, it would be hard to believe that the Additional Commissioner would permit the party to produce the record before the judgment, yet would not wait. Be it as it may, however, considering the plea and reliance on documents urged before us, this Court would choose to peruse the record to find out whether at least prima facie the appellant has demonstrated the truth of his version and thereupon to decide as to whether the appellant has earned an opportunity of re-hearing. 17] Point no.[iii]:- [a] We have perused the record produced by the appellant. [b] The record is classified as follows:- The resolution of panchayat. Register showing borrowings by the panchayat. Cash book. Measurement book. 18] Resolution of panchayat:- [a] It is seen from the perusal of proceedings that the appellant relies on resolution of the panchayat that they had resolved to permit the borrowing or taking of advance from the Sarpanch. Though the said record is disbelieved by both the authorities, its weight will depend on evidentiary value of other material. [b] In the register of borrowings, it is reflected from page no.100 of this appeal paper book that three amounts are shown as borrowings from the appellant herein. Those are:- (1) Rs.3,00,000/- on 31.3.2011, (2) Rs.1,50,000/- on 2.4.2011, and (3) Rs.1,88,971/- on 6.4.2011. [c] The record produced before us does not show further entries of refund which should have ordinarily occurred. 19] Cash Book:- On perusal of cash book from page no.105 onwards, it is seen that certain purchases are shown. No individual heads of cash flowing out against purchases of different heads are shown. Total expenditure on seven heads is shown. Opening and closing balance of cash available on opening or closing either is not shown. 19] Cash Book:- On perusal of cash book from page no.105 onwards, it is seen that certain purchases are shown. No individual heads of cash flowing out against purchases of different heads are shown. Total expenditure on seven heads is shown. Opening and closing balance of cash available on opening or closing either is not shown. The cash received on the basis of borrowing or advances from the Sarpanch is also not reflected on due dates i.e. 31st March, 2nd April and 6th April. 20] Measurement Book:- The measurement books show that the measurement is recorded on 20.3.2011 and 31.3.2011. The description contained in the measurement book can be described as "providing and fixing" or "supplying and fixing". 21] If the totality of documents are seen, the observations made by the Additional Commissioner that the manner in which the advances are shown and the refund is given without producing the evidence relating to the work done and the vouchers and attendance of the workers or any other people employed, proves that it is a case where the appellant herein has interest in the transactions. 22] In our point of view, giving advances within a period of seven days i.e. between 31st March to 6th April following, and recovering the same on 21st April to 24th April does not stand to the test of good conscience. 23] There cannot exist any reason, occasion or cause to have lent such huge amount, that too in cash without proving that it has corresponding entries in the cash book and physical availability of cash in the cash box and without proving its expenditure based on vouchers. 24] The allegation which follows by adverse inference is that the appellant had interest in the work and has most probably got it done by himself and in order to show that the work was done from the funds of panchayat, he has made a show of payment in cash and then recovering it by cheques from the panchayat. 25] As the facts have emerged, it would not be possible for the appellant to urge that the evidence which he was prevented from producing had any worth and value to attract remanding the matter for further hearing. 26] The appeal has no merit and is dismissed. 27] In view of dismissal of appeal, Civil Application No.306/2013 does not survive and is disposed of as such.