1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7449 OF 2009 Sambhaji D.Patil .. Petitioner. Vs. Grampanchayat Ajara & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the petitioner. Mr.A.B.Borkar for respondent nos.5, 6, 9 to 12, 16 to 18. Mrs.Neha Palshikar for respondent nos.19 and 20. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 29TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner – Sarpanch has challenged the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities below in the proceedings whereby a resolution passed by the gram panchayat accepting his resignation as Sarpanch was under challenge. The resignation was allegedly tendered on 25.5.2009 and it was accepted in the meeting held on 30.5.2009 unanimously. 3. Mr.Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the orders passed by the authorities below on two grounds. Firstly, he submitted that the fact of withdrawal of the 2 resignation by the petitioner vide letter dated 29.5.2009 was not considered by the authorities below, and secondly, he submitted that both the attesting witnesses to the resignation letter have denied their signatures and in view thereof it cannot be stated that the resignation was validly tendered. He submitted that the petitioner’s contention were not considered by the authorities below in proper perspective. I have considered the entire material placed before the court. It is true that the petitioner contended that he withdrew his resignation vide letter dated 29.5.2009, but he has not produced an acknowledgment of having tendered the said letter to the gram sevak, and in absence thereof both the authorities below have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner that he had withdrawn the resignation. I asked Mr.Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner to produce, even at this stage, an acknowledgment of the having tendered the letter dated 29.5.2009 withdrawing the resignation. However, he could not produce it on record. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that two witnesses, who signed the resignation letter as witnesses, is concerned, it is true, in the instant proceedings they have stated that they did not sign as attesting witnesses. However, in my opinion, this submission also deserves to be rejected outright for more than one reason. Firstly, the attesting witnesses have stated so after more than three weeks, secondly, they did not make such grievance in the meeting wherein the 3 resignation was accepted unanimously, and lastly, a bare perusal of their signatures on the resignation letter, show that they are genuine. In the circumstances this petition fails and dismissed as such. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)