1 wp3364.09.odt FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3364/2009 ( Rajendra Thakare + 2 ..V/s.. State of Maharashtra, through Divisional Commissioner & others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. P.S. Patil, counsel for petitioner. Mr. P.D. Kothari, A.G.P. for State. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & F.M. REIS JJ. DATE : 16 th NOVEMBER , 2009 . Heard Mr. Patil, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Kothari, learned A.G.P. for State. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of order dated 15/5/2009 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Amravati by exercising powers under section 145 (1-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The counsel for petitioner has submitted that while dissolving the village panchayat the Divisional Commissioner has not given any reason regarding resignations by respondent nos.4 to 9. It is contended that as per sub-section 1-A of Section 145 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter for short “the Act”) “if more than half the total number of seats in a Panchayat have become vacant, the State Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, dissolve such Panchayat”. However, since word “may” is used, the dissolving of such Panchayat is not mandatory and therefore, it is necessary for the Commissioner to give reasons while dissolving the 2 wp3364.09.odt panchayat. It is further contended that this Court considered this issue in the decision reported in 2007 (6) ALL MR 886 (Shri Jahangir Yusuf Qureshi & Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra ) . Learned A.G.P. for State supported the impugned order and contended that same is consistent with the provisions of law and is based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the parties and perused sub-section 1-A of Section 145 of the Act and the decision of this Court. In the instant case the total strength of the panchayat is nine, out of which six people have given resignation and therefore, the panchayat is left with only three members. In a situation like this a conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner that panchayat cannot function with this strength is adequate enough to exercise powers under sub-section 1-A of Section 145 of the Act and the same is just and proper and is sustainable in law. The order passed in these peculiar circumstances cannot be said to be inconsistent with the law laid down by this court nor it is inconsistent with the provisions of law. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.