1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.10125 of 2009 Shri Ananda Natha Kalel .. .. Petitioner v/s. Grampanchayat Thabade Wadi through its Gramsevak & ors. .. Respondents Mr.Umesh Manapure for Petitioner. Mr.T.S. Ingale for Res.Nos.2 to 6. Mrs.Neha Bhide, B Panel Counsel, AGP for Res.Nos.7 & 8. Mr.Nagesh Chavanh for Res.No.1. Mr.B.D. Kumble, Gram Sevak Thabade Wadi, Tal. Kavthe- Mahankal, present. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 19th January, 2010 P.C. : 1.The Petitioner was a member and later a Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat and in such capacity resigned in the prescribed form. The Petitioner contends that his signature is forged and the resignation is bogus. He learnt about it from the villagers. Hence he addressed his complaint to the Gram Sevak mentioning about the bogus resignation and sought to withdraw it. The resignation is dated 9.3.2009. This complaint is made on 28.4.2009. A meeting of the Gram Panchayat was scheduled on 30th April 2009. He has attended and signed the Minutes of that meeting of 30th April 2009. 2 Item NO.9 of the agenda of that meeting was the resignation of the Petitioner. The notice of the meeting has also been issued by him as the Sarpanch and is signed by him. Item No.9 of the agenda shows the acceptance of his resignation proposed and seconded and thereafter passed. The Gram Sevak as well as the Petitioner as the Sarpanch have signed the Minutes of the meeting. The Minutes are, therefore, evidence of what transpired thereat. It, therefore, shows the acceptance of the resignation in the presence of the Petitioner and signed by the Petitioner. The resignation has been effectuated on 30th April under the signature of the Petitioner himself. 2.The Petitioner claims not to have resigned upon the premise that he has withdrawn his resignation before it was put at the meeting and hence it ceased to be a resignation altogether since the resignation would be effectuated only upon acceptance at the meeting. 3.After the meeting came to be held as notified by the Petitioner himself and as scheduled, the Petitioner filed his objections on 4.5.2009 before the Collector. The Collector rejected his objections from which the Petitioner filed his Appeal before the Commissioner who has also rejected the Petitioner s case of withdrawal of his resignation. This Petition impugns both these 3 orders. The proceedings are under Section 29 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (the Act), which deals with the resignations of the members and disputes regarding resignation. It forms a complete code in itself with regard to this subject. Under Section 29(1) of the Act, the Sarpanch is entitled to resign his office by a writing in his hand, addressed to the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti in a prescribed form. That has been done under the resignation letter dated 9.3.2009. It is signed by the Petitioner in the presence of two witnesses. It is received by the Chairman of the Village Samiti. 4.Under Section 29(2) of the Act, on receipt of the resignation, the Sarpanch or the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti is required to forward it to the Secretary who is required to place it before the meeting of the Panchayat next following. The Petitioner s resignation has been placed before the meeting of the Panchayat convened under the notice, inter alia, issued by the Petitioner himself under his signature. 5.The meeting has been held as per the notice and the resolution has been passed thereafter, the Minutes of which are signed by the Petitioner. 4 6.Under Section 29(3) of the Act, if the Sarpanch, whose resignation is placed before the meeting of the Panchayat, wants to dispute the genuineness of the resignation, he has to file a dispute before the Collector within 7 days of the date on which the resignation is placed before the meeting of the Panchayat. The Petitioner has filed that dispute before the Collector being Application No.29 of 2009 challenging his resignation. 7.Under Section 29(3) of the Act itself, on receipt of the dispute, the Collector is required to decide the dispute preferably within 15 days of the receipt. The Collector has decided that dispute on 11.9.2009, which decision has been challenged. 8.Under Section 29(4) of the Act, an Appeal from that decision lies before the Commissioner. That Appeal has been filed by the Petitioner in September 2009. Under Section 29(5) of the Act, the decision of the Commissioner would be final. That decision has been rendered on 6.11.2009. Under Section 29(6)(c) of the Act, the resignation would take effect 7 days from the date of the rejection of the Appeal by the Commissioner. This resignation would take effect on and from 6th November 2009. 5 9.It is the Petitioner s case that soon after the resignation letter was sent to the Chairman of the Village Samiti, he came to learn about it and on 28.4.2009, he withdrew the letter under his letter addressed to the Gram Sevak, stating that it was forged and, therefore, bogus and also mentioning that he would start a criminal prosecution. He, therefore, contends that the withdrawal of his resignation prior to its acceptance at the meeting would render the resignation itself invalid and the fact that it was to be accepted at the meeting would show that until it is accepted it would not come into effect. The Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner argues that the resignation would not come into effect until it is placed before the meeting and accepted at the meeting and hence the withdrawal prior to the meeting itself shows that his resignation had no meaning. 10.Despite the Petitioner s withdrawal of the resignation addressed to the Gram Sevak stated to have been given on 28.4.2009, the Petitioner himself sent a notice of the meeting of the Gram Panchayat on that day. One of the items on the agenda was his own resignation. The Gram Sevak has also issued the notice along with the Petitioner. The same Gram Sevak has attended the meeting and signed the Minutes also. The fact that the Petitioner s signatures on the notice of the meeting as 6 well as on the Minutes of the meeting are the same as his signature on the resignation letter itself, the entire case of the Petitioner about forgery is not brought out by the Petitioner who was present at the meeting for discussion. That case cannot be accepted. The Petitioner s resignation has been accepted at the meeting in his own presence and his further dispute is of no substance. 11.The Petitioner s Advocate referred to the judgment in the case of Kumudini Ratilal Bhagat & ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 1987 Maharashtra Law Journal 462. That was a case where the resignation of 4 members of the Gram Panchayat were admittedly withdrawn before the meeting as per inherent right of the persons to withdraw their resignation before it becomes final at the meeting. The considerations and observations in the judgment relating to breathing time, which is given to the member or the Sarpanch, who resigns to withdraw the resignation, would not apply in this case when that Sarpanch has himself sealed his own fate by passing a resolution accepting the resignation. 12.Consequently, the impugned order cannot be challenged. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 13.Ad-interim order shall continue for two weeks. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.) 7