1 wp6812.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6812 OF 2011 KJ Sou.Jamuna Mahadeo Dalvi & Ors. )..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. )..Respondents ­­­­ Mr. Purshottam G.Chavan for the petitioners. Mr. A.I.Patel AGP for the respondent nos.1 to 3. ­­­­ CORAM : D.D.SINHA & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 8th September, 2011 ORAL ORDER : ( PER : D.D.SINHA,J) 1 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. 2 Writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.7.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, whereby the Gram Panchayat came to be dissolved by exercising powers under 2 wp6812.11.sxw Section 145(1)A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Gram Panchayat had 9 elected members, out of which, it is alleged that 5 members have tendered their resignations and therefore, the strength of the total members has gone below half of the total members of the panchayat and therefore, the Commissioner dissolved the Gram Panchayat by exercising powers under Section 145(1) A of the Act by passing impugned order. 3 The impugned order is challenged on the following grounds :­ 1. Petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order ; 2. That the resignation letters were submitted by 5 members under pressure from some political persons ; hence same were not given voluntarily ; 3. Respondent no.2 ought to have considered the provisions of Article 243 D of the Constitution of India while passing the impugned order. 3 wp6812.11.sxw 4 The AGP has submitted that the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Solapur during the course of the inquiry recorded statements of 5 members of the Gram Panchayat who had tendered their resignations, including that of the petitioner. Every member in his statement has specifically admitted that the resignation given by him was totally voluntary and not under any pressure, political or otherwise. The AGP further contended that none of them withdrew the resignation till this date. It is therefore, contended that the Commissioner was justified in dissolving the Gram Panchayat as per the mandate of Section 145(1) A of the Act. 5 The AGP also brought to the notice of this court Rule­9 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (meeting) Rules of 1959 which deals with the forum required for transacting business of meeting of panchayat. It is submitted by the AGP that since 5 elected members out of 9 of the Gram Panchayat tendered their resignations, the business of meeting of panchayat cannot be 4 wp6812.11.sxw transacted for want of forum and therefore, action of the Commissioner. is just and proper. 6 We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel and perused section 145 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act as well as Rule 9 (meeting rules) 1959. The provisions of Section 145(1)A contemplates, `if more than half reporting number of seats in a panchayat have become vacant, the State Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, dissolve such panchayat.’ In the instant case, it is not in dispute that total number of elected members were 9, out of that 5 members tendered their resignations. IN view of the facts placed before us by the learned AGP, it appears that inquiry was conducted by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad and during the course of the inquiry, the statements of the members who have tendered their resignations were recorded in which each one of them has specifically stated that each one of them voluntarily tendered the resignation. It is not in dispute that none of them thereafter withdrew the resignation. The Chief Executive Officer therefore, 5 wp6812.11.sxw submitted his report to the authority concerned. Provisions of Section 145(1)A is loud and clear, if more than half the total number of seats in a panchayat have become vacant, the State Government is entitled to pass an order in the Official Gazette and can dissolve such panchayat. In the instant case, in view of undisputed fact referred to here­in­above, the power exercised by the Commissioner under Section 145 (1) A, in our view, is just and proper. 7 The petitioner was Sarpanch of the Gram panchayat whose statement was also recorded by the Chief Executive Officer during the course of the inquiry. However, in the said statement, the petitioner has nowhere mentioned that the resignation letters given by 5 members were not signed by them, nor it is mentioned that these resignation letters were not genuine ones. The petitioner in his statement has only stated that resignations were given by 5 members under political pressure with stating the nature of pressure. 6 wp6812.11.sxw 8 It is in these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the authorities have not violated the principles of natural justice since the statements of 5 members were recorded in the inquiry conducted by the Chief Executive Officer and each one of them has specifically admitted that resignation tendered by him voluntarily. There is nothing placed on record to demonstrate that any one of them withdrew the resignation thereafter 9 Similarly, it will be appropriate to consider the purport of Rule 9(1) of Rules of 1959. It contemplates that the forum necessary for transaction of the business at the meeting of panchayat shall be one half of the total members, including Sarpanch and Upa­sarpanch. In the instant case, 5 elected members out of 9 have tendered their resignations, and therefore, transaction of business at any meeting of Gram Panchayat for want of coram could not have taken place after the resignations were tendered by 5 elected members out of 9. It is in these circumstances, the action of dissolution of Gram Panchayat taken by the Commissioner by exercising power under Section 145(1) A 7 wp6812.11.sxw of the Act is just and proper and is also sustainable in law. 10 So far as the 3rd ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is concerned, it is difficult for us to appreciate as to how it further the case of the petitioner. The petition suffers from lack of merit. Hence, petition is dismissed. (D.D.SINHA,J) (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J)