1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 244 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2441 OF 2009 (Khushal Sakharam Gedam vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. SEPTEMBER 07, 2009. This Court on 7.8.2009 issued notice, informing the parties that Letters Patent Appeal may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself. All the parties are served. Today, we have heard Shri Ashirgade, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondents No. 5 to 10 and Shri Mandpe, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri Deepak Mohad, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 – Secretary is not available. However, after hearing parties, we feel that it is not necessary to hear the Secretary of Gram Panchayat. By inviting our attention to provisions of Section 29(1) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, read with Rule 3(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Delivery of Notice of Resignation) Rules, 1965, Shri Ashirgade, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the alleged resignation of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch is neither tendered by duly authorized 2 person nor sent through Registered post acknowledgment due or personally, as contemplated and hence the resignation could not have been accepted. He further points out that as per the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Act, the resignation ought to have been placed before the next meeting of Gram Panchayat i.e. a meeting to be held in the regular course after receipt of said resignation. He points out that alleged resignation is dated 20.09.2009 and meeting to consider said resignation was then scheduled immediately on 22.09.2008. On the said date, the meeting was adjourned to 23.09.2008. According to him, as the petitioner had received threats, he could not dare to attend the meeting and he had informed the authorities accordingly by sending a communication on 22.09.2008 itself. He relies upon the office copy of said communication to show that Tahsil office at Yavatmal, Panchayat Samiti office at Yavatmal and Collector office at Yavatmal had received his complaint on 22.09.2008. The complaint has not been considered and the Collector as also the Additional Commissioner in appeal have found that the petitioner ought to have attended the meeting. He states that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition because the petitioner did not remain present in the meeting conducted on 23.09.2008. Shri Patil, learned counsel as also Shri Mandpe, learned AGP strongly reply upon the proceedings as recorded in the meeting to urge that the 3 witnesses who have attested the resignation of the petitioner were examined in the said meeting and their statements were recorded. Shri Patil, learned counsel states that the witnesses have deposed that there was no force upon the petitioner and resignation is voluntary. Shri Patil, learned counsel further states that the petitioner, who tendered his complaint to various authorities on 22.09.2008, could have very well remained present in the meeting and informed the General Body that by applying force, resignation was obtained from him. He states that the authorities have rightly appreciated the controversy and no interference is called for in the present LPA. After hearing the respective counsel, we find that the provisions of Section 29 read with Rule 3(2) mentioned above prescribe a particular mode of submitting resignation. There is no finding in relation to the binding nature of those provisions. Similarly, though the petitioner has in his representation submitted on 22.09.2008 to various authorities specifically communicated that he had received threats and he would not be in a position to leave the house, none of the authorities have found that the petitioner had in fact left the house and came to their office and submitted the complaint. Shri Ashirgade, learned counsel states that the petitioner sent his son to submit the representation/ complaint to various authorities. The authorities have not recorded any finding in this respect and therefore, 4 we leave the issue open for consideration by appropriate authorities. It is to be noticed that the said representation/ complaint was not even placed before the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti conducted on 23.09.2008. In view of this position, we do not find it necessary to delve more in details at this stage. We quash and set aside the orders dated 27.11.2008 passed by the Additional Collector, Yavatmal and order dated 03.06.2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. The dispute before the Additional Collector is restored back to its file for taking appropriate decision after hearing the parties in accordance with law. It is made clear that the observations made above are only for the purpose of consideration of the controversy as raised before us and we have not recorded any finding either on law or on facts. The parties are at liberty to bring on record the necessary facts and to address the authorities on law. As the matter is old, we direct Respondent No.3 – Additional Collector to decide the dispute as early as possible and in any case by 31st January 2010. LPA is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.