1 W.P.No.8638/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8638 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.P.V.Mandlik, advocate instructed by Mr.Amol S.Gandhi, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 16.11.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. Mr.Mandlik, learned Senior counsel submits that the Commissioner while passing the impugned order has not considered the provisions of Section 145(1-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act in its correct perspective. The said provision prescribes that when more than half the total number of seats in Panchayat have become vacant, the State Government may by order in the official gazette dissolve such Panchayat. The learned Senior counsel contends that in view of this clear provision, the Commissioner could not have directed by-election of the six seats becoming vacant. The total number of members in the Panchayat are nine. Out of said nine members, six members have 2 W.P.No.8638/11 tendered resignation, as such only three members remained in the Panchayat. The Panchayat can not function with these three members only. In view of this, the Panchayat is required to be dissolved. The learned Senior counsel further contends that the Commissioner while passing the impugned order has not given reasons as to why it is not necessary to dissolve the Panchayat. 3. With the assistance of the learned Senior counsel, I have gone through the order. It transpires from the order that the Commissioner had called for the report from the Collector, Parbhani. The Collector, Parbhani had recommended that the Panchayat may not be dissolved. The Commissioner has gone through the report. The Commissioner, also taken into consideration that the elections were held on 25.8.2010. The persons who had resigned had resigned on their own volition. It has also been considered by the Commissioner that the Gram Panchayat is fundamental part of a democratic process and just because some of the members have resigned, the same would not be sufficient to dissolve the said Panchayat. The Commissioner has also taken into consideration the guidelines issued in the circular by the State. 4. The Gram Panchayat is a local self-Government. The members are democratically elected. The rights of such members who are democratically elected can not be negatived in a casual manner. The term of almost four (4) years still remains. In such 3 W.P.No.8638/11 circumstances, simply because some of the members have tendered their resignation on their own volition, that would not be sufficient to dissolve the Panchayat. The Commissioner has taken into consideration all these aspects and has directed by-election of the said six seats which have become vacant. It is informed that the election programme has also been declared and the elections for the said six seats are scheduled on 15.12.2011. The provisions of Section 145 (1-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, are directory and the same can not be construed as mandatory. The phraseology of Section 145 (1-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, is couched in such a manner that no other interpretation is permissible and it will have to be held that the same is directory inasmuch as discretion vest with the Government either to dissolve the Panchayat or to order by-election of the said seats. 5. In view of the above, the discretion exercised by the Commissioner is a plausible one and more in consonance with the democratic set up. 6. In light of the above, the Writ Petition being sans merit, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.16.11.2011. 4 W.P.No.8638/11