Mumbai: Part I of this series reported allegations of nearly ₹30 crore in financial irregularities linked to telecom permissions in the Dhule Municipal Corporation. Part II examined how those transactions were processed within the system — from permissions to billing and recovery decisions.
Part III now turns to the documents. Because in this case, the paper trail does not move in one direction. It splits.On one side are records — demand drafts, online payment advices, and a high-value bank instrument — all showing that payments were made. On the other side are bank responses that do not fully support those claims.
Between the two lies the central question. If payments were made, where is the money?
The complaint filed by consulting engineer Hitendrasingh Indrasingh Khairnar refers to multiple demand drafts issued over the years by telecom companies as part of permission charges. These drafts are recorded with dates, numbers, and amounts. In several instances, entries appear to have been made showing that payments were received. However, a communication from HDFC Bank dated October 9, 2025 introduces a contradiction. In response to an official query, the bank stated that several of these drafts were not credited to any account of the Dhule Municipal Corporation.
The amounts are not insignificant. They run into lakhs across multiple years. If drafts were issued but not credited, the issue is not clerical. It becomes a question of verification. Were these drafts ever deposited? And if not, how were entries made showing receipt? The inconsistency does not end there.
Among the documents is a manager’s cheque of ₹1.5 crore, reportedly generated at an HDFC Bank branch in Dhule. The instrument exists. But the corresponding amount is not reflected as credited in municipal accounts, as per the bank’s response. A bank instrument of this value does not disappear without a trail. It has a clear lifecycle — issuance, deposit, and clearance. If that trail does not match the accounting records, one question follows. Was the instrument ever realised?
The third layer of concern relates to online payments. The complaint refers to payment advices submitted to show that transactions had been completed. In at least two instances — involving amounts of approximately ₹48.10 lakh and ₹79.57 lakh — payment advices were submitted indicating that the payments had been honoured. However, as recorded in the complaint, these amounts were not reflected as credited at the time the entries were made, and were only shown as completed after follow-up.
This raises a question about the sequence. If payments were shown as completed before actual credit, what process validated those entries? The issue becomes more complex when the supporting documentation is examined.
In at least one instance, an email submitted as proof of payment — linked to Axis Bank — has been questioned during internal verification. Efforts to obtain a formal written clarification from the bank are ongoing. If such email confirmations were relied upon without corresponding credits in bank records, it raises concerns about the verification process applied to digital payment proofs.
When seen individually, each of these instances may appear as a discrepancy. But when viewed together — across demand drafts, online payments, and high-value instruments — a pattern begins to emerge. Records indicate payment. Bank responses do not fully align.
The timeline adds further context. The discrepancies were formally raised through written representations in October and November 2023. The matter escalated in March 2024, when a recovery notice of nearly ₹30 crore was issued. A police complaint followed in July 2025. Bank correspondence came later, in October 2025.
This sequence shows that the questions around the payment trail were not recent. They were raised, documented, and pursued over time. These findings are based on documents cited in the complaint and subsequent communications. TheNews21 has not independently verified each transaction. However, the contradictions in the available records point to a larger issue.
This is no longer about a single missing entry. It is about a mismatch between what the system recorded and what the banking channel reflects. Which brings the story back to its simplest question. If payments were shown as received but are not traceable in bank records, where did the process fail? And who was responsible for verifying it?
Part III does not conclude the investigation. It shifts the focus. From approvals and decisions to documentation and verification. Because in financial systems, money leaves a trail. If that trail breaks repeatedly, it is not an accident. It is a signal.
TheNews21 will seek responses from the concerned officials and institutions regarding the discrepancies highlighted.
Part IV will examine the pattern further — including earlier records, inter-city linkages, and the question of accountability.
