1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4743 OF 2009 Shri.Abasaheb Dagadu Lakade ..Petitioner -versus The Collector, Solapur .. Respondents Shri.Uday Warunjikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri.Sameer Patil, APP for the state. CORAM: A.V. NIRGUDE & R. G. KETKAR, JJ (Vacation Court) DATED: 18th May, 2009 P.C. 1. This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated February 20, 2009, passed by the Additional Collector, Solapur, in 2 Dispute Application No. 4 of 2009, preferred by the petitioner herein, as also the order dated April 20, 2009, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune in an appeal preferred by the petitioner u/s 29 of The Bombay Village Panchayats Act, l958 (for short called as “said Act”). 2. The petitioner was an elected member of Gram Panchayat, Katraj, Taluka : Karmala, District Solapur on December l5, 2007. It is alleged that by letter dated January l5, 2009, he resigned his office by writing his hand to the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti at Karmala. The Block Development Officer, Class I, Panchayat Samiti, Karmala, under communication dated January 17, 2009, addressed to Gram Sevak of Katraj Gram Panchayat called upon the latter to comply with the provisions of section 34 of the said Act, namely the resignation of the petitioner be placed before the meeting of the Gram Panchayat for considering its genuineness. It is the case of the petitioner that immediately by communication dated January l9, 2009, addressed to the Block Development 3 Officer Class I, as also Chairman of the Panchayat Samit, he disputed the fact of tendering resignation. The meeting of the Gram Panchayat was convened on January 20, 2009, for verifying the genuineness of the resignation. The resolution was passed unanimously, for forwarding the report of verification of genuineness of the resignation. It is the case of the petitioner that by communication dated January 27, 2009, addressed to the Chairman of the Panchayat Samit, he disputed the resignation as also recording of the minutes of the meeting dated January 20, 2009. Copy of the said communication was forwarded to the Additional Collector, Solapur and ors. 3. The petitioner thereafter on January 30, 2009, filed Gram Panchayat Dispute before the Collector, Solapur. The said dispute was opposed by the Respondent Nos 4 to 7 therein by filing reply. The Additional Collector, Solapur, dismissed the dispute, mainly on the ground that under section 29(3) of the said Act, dispute has to be raised within 7 days from the date on which resignation is placed before the meeting of the Panchayat. The dispute 4 was filed beyond the period prescribed under section 29 (3) of the said Act. The Additional Collector accordingly dismissed the dispute. 4. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 29(4) of the said Act, before the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. The Additional Commissioner, Pune , after considering rival contentions came to the conclusion that the petitioner submitted notice of resignation dated January l5, 2009 to the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Karmala. The resignation letter was signed by Respondent Nos 5 & 6 therein as witness. The resignation notice was sent in the form prescribed under Bombay Village Panchayat (Delivery of Notice of Resignation) Rules l965. The Chairman of Panchayat Samit, Karmala as also the Block Development Officer, followed the requisite proceeding for verifying authenticity of the resignation, alleged to have been tendered by the petitioner. In the meeting of Gram Panchayat convened on January 20,2009, resolution was passed. The Divisional 5 Commissioner came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not substantiated his claim that under duress he had signed resignation or that his resignation is fabricated document. On this and amongst other grounds, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner. 5. Shri.Warunjikar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner did not tender resignation, consequently there is no question of submitting the resignation to the Chairman of Panchayat Samiti. He also disputed the minutes of the meeting convened on January 20, 2009. He further contended that even before meeting could take place on January 20, 2009 he had sent communication dated January 19, 2009 to the Block Development Officer as also Chairman of the Panchayat Samit, Karmala. Lastly he contended that the Additional Collector dismissed the dispute only on the ground that the same was presented beyond time limit prescribed under section 29(3) of the said Act. However, the Divisional Commissioner, proceeded to consider the 6 appeal even on merits instead of remanding the matter to the Additional Collector, which has resulted into deprivation of his valuable rights. 6. On the other hand learned AGP on behalf of the State, invited our attention to the section 29(6) of the said Act, which lays down that the resignation shall take effect where appeal is made to the Commissioner immediately after appeal is rejected by the Commissioner. In the present case the Commissioner dismissed the appeal on April 20, 2009 and the present petition is instituted in this Court on or about May 5, 2009. He also supported the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. 7. After considering rival submissions we are of the opinion that there is no substance in any of the grounds urged by the petitioner. The Divisional Commissioner has discussed the merits of the case in paragraph Nos 5.2 to 5.4 and it has been held that the petitioner has signed the resignation notice and also submitted to the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Karmala. The said resignation is also in the form prescribed under Bombay Village 7 Panchayat (Delivery of Notice of Resignation) Rules, l965. The petitioner has also admitted his signature on the resignation letter. In view of this it is not possible for us to entertain this petition by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition stands accordingly dismissed. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J) (R.G. KETKAR, J)