1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Letters Patent Appeal No.244 Of 2010 In Writ Petition No.6368 Of 2009 With C.A.No.12411 Of 2010 in LPA No.244 Of 2010 Agnela w/o Vijay Patil. .. Appellant. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. V.B. Garud, Advocate for appellant. Shri. V.D. Godbharle, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondents Nos.1 to 3. Shri. S.S. Manale, Advocate for respondent No.4. Shri. Milind Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos.6,8,10, 12 to 15. Shri. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.17. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P DAWARE, JJ. DATE: 2nd DECEMBER 2010 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2 2) Leave to add State Election Commission. Shri. S.T. Shelke, learned counsel appears for the State Election Commission and waives notice. 3) The appellant contested election from Ward Nos. 1 and 2 of Village Gram Panchayat Lanji. In view of provisions of Section 13A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, if a person is elected to more than one seat in a village Panchayat then unless within the prescribed time he resigns all but one of the seats by notice in writing signed by him and addressed to the State Election Commission or any officer authorised by it then all the seats shall become vacant. 4) In the present case an application was filed by respondent No.9 and others for holding election to the seat which would fall vacant as the appellant contested and got elected from Ward Nos.1 and 2. Hearing of this application was conducted before the Additional Collector. The parties participated in the hearing. By an order dated 12-8-2009 the Additional Collector partly allowed the application declaring seat in ward No.2 to be vacant. 3 5) The Additional Collector thereafter passed another order dated 7-9-2009 under which for want of compliance of provisions of Section 13A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act") the appellant was declared unseated from the seat of Ward No. 1 as she did not submit resignation to the designated officer as prescribed under Section 13A of the Act. It is this order challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge in the proceedings of Writ Petition No.6368 Of 2009. 6) The learned Single Judge by an order dated 13th July 2010 admitted the writ petition by giving returnable date after 8 weeks for further hearing. The interim order granted on 25th September 2009 was vacated. 7) Letters Patent Appeal was preferred against the said order. On 9-9-2010 this Court continued the ad interim relief granted on 25-9-2009 by reviving the same. 8) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed affidavit in reply. 4 9) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not heard when second order was passed by the Additional Collector on 7-9-2009. The appellant submitted resignation to the Tahsildar who failed to forward the same to the Collector for which the appellant shall not be unseated from Ward No.1. 10) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.9 - complainant submitted that the second proceeding was the continuation of the first proceeding. The Collector was the designated officer. The appellant submitted her resignation to the Tahsildar which violated the provisions of Section 13A of the Act. 11) The learned Additional Government Pleader places reliance on affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and supported the order passed by the Additional Collector. 12) Learned counsel Shri. S.T. Shelke appearing for the State Election Commission submits that, under the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 5 the rules framed thereunder and the notifications issued from time to time by the State Election Commission, it is the Collector who is authorised officer with whom resignation could be submitted. 13) We do not find any glaring infirmity in the impugned order. There is no merit in the appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. CA stands rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (SHRIHARI P DAWARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ lpa.244.10