IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.29 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10125 OF 2009 Ananda Natha Kalel .. Appellant Versus Grampanchayat Thabade Wadi through its Gramsevak & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Umesh Mankapure for appellant Mr.Tejpal Ingale for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 Mr.Suresh Bhosale, AGP for respondent Nos. 7 ad 8 Mr.T.S.Ingale for respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6 Mr.Nagesh Chavan for respondent No.1. CORAM : ANIL R. DAVE C.J & S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 16th February 2010. P.C.: 1] Heard. Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing. 2] Being aggrieved by the judgement delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.10125 of 2009, this Letters Patent Appeal is filed. 3] The facts giving rise to filing of present LPA in nutshell are as under:- 4] The petitioner was a Sarpanch of Thabadewadi Grampanchayat. On 9th March 2009 he tendered his resignation. The same was forwarded on 19th March 2009 to the Secretary of Grampanchayat for discussion and consideration of the same in the meeting of Grampanchayat to be convened on 28th April 2009. However, the meeting could not be convened on that date and the same was adjourned to 30th April 2009. In the meantime, according to the appellant, he had withdrawn his resignation by his letter dated 28th April 2009 which fact was also conveyed to the Grampanchayat. 5] On 30th April 2009, the appellant was present in the meeting when his resignation was discussed. It is the case of the appellant that he had submitted to the Grampanchayat that he had already withdrawn his resignation under his letter dated 28th April 2009. However, the submission made by the appellant was not considered and the resignation was accepted. 6] In the aforestated circumstances, a dispute was raised before the Collector, Sangli District under the provisions of Section 29 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. The Collector, Sangli by his order dated 11th September 2009 came to the conclusion that the resignation was rightly accepted by the Panchayat. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Collector, Sangli, the appellant filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division under the provisions of Section 29(4) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. 7] At the time when the appeal was to be heard before the Commissioner, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant was not present and, therefore, the appellant had prayed for time. The Commissioner did not grant time. However, he, according to the appellant, observed that he would look into the papers and decide the appeal. Ultimately, by an order dated 25th September 2009, the appeal filed by the appellant had been dismissed. 8] Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, the appellant had filed the aforesaid writ petition which has been rejected and, therefore, this present LPA. 9] Upon hearing learned Advocates and looking into the orders passed by different authorities, we find that the Commissioner did not grant any opportunity to the appellant to be represented by his Advocate. The Commissioner did not consider the fact that the resignation came to be withdrawn by the appellant on 28th April 2009 and he did not consider the judgement delivered by this Court in the case if Kumudini Ratilal Bhagat and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (reported in 1987 Mh.L.J. 462). 10] According to the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant his case is squarely covered by the judgement delivered in Kumudini’s case (supra). According to him, if the Commissioner had considered the aforesaid judgement, possibly he would have taken a different view because the resignation which had been submitted on 9th March 2009 had already been withdrawn on 28th April 2009 by the appellant. Therefore, in fact it was not necessary for the Grampanchayat to discuss the resignation as, according to the learned Advocate appearing for appellant, there was no resignation at all. 11] Looking to the aforesaid facts and especially in view of the fact that the appellant could not get an opportunity to represent his case properly before the Commissioner, we quash and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner which has also been confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. We are not in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge and inclined to remand the matter to the Commissioner for deciding the appeal of the appellant afresh after taking into consideration the judgement in Kumudini’s case (supra). 12] In these circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division so that the Commissioner can consider the same afresh after hearing both sides. Learned Advocate appearing for parties have assured this Court that they shall extend full cooperation to the Commissioner so that the appeal can be decided expeditiously. Parties have also assured to this Court that no unnecessary adjournments would be sought. We hope that the Commissioner shall decide the appeal within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order by him. LPA is disposed of as allowed with above directions. 13] We, however, clarify that we have not gone into the merits of the case and, therefore, the Commissioner should not be influenced by any observations made by learned Single Judge of this Court and by us and shall decide the matter afresh on merits and in accordance with law. 14] We also clarify that no interim relief is granted and, therefore, the Sarpanch who is already elected would perform his duties. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)