DHANUSINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Shri Fulzele, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent No. 1, Shri Tajne, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 4, and Shri Padhye, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.

(2.) Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has submitted that the Petitioners are elected members of Respondent No. 2 Panchayat Samiti, Mahagaon and Respondent No. 3 is Chairman thereof. The grievance of the Petitioners is against the communication dated 23/12/2010 issued by the Respondent No. 2 Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Mahagaon whereby Collector, Yavatmal was informed that resignations tendered by the Petitioners as members of the Panchayat Samiti have been accepted by the Chairman of Panchayat Samiti and, therefore, their posts fell vacant, hence, appropriate steps to fill up vacancies according to law should be taken. It is submitted that acceptance of resignations alleged to have been given by the Petitioners by the Chairman of Panchayat Samiti is in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 60 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1961"), Rules 3, 4 and 6 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads (Councilors) and Panchayat Samitis (Members) (Resignation) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1962") as well as sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 3 of the Maharahstra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Delivery of Notice of Resignation) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1965") and, therefore, action of the Chairman of Panchayat Samiti is unsustainable in law.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners neither tendered their resignations to the appropriate Authority, i.e. Chairman nor any acknowledgment was issued by the appropriate Authority and, therefore, there is a clear violation of provisions of Rules 3 and 6 of the Rules of 1962. It is submitted that this fact has not been disputed by the Respondent No. 3 and in para (4) of the affidavit-in-reply dated 23/3/2011 filed by Respondent No. 3, it has been specifically stated that the Petitioners submitted their resignations before Respondent No. 2 Block Development Officer, who is not the appropriate Authority. The appropriate Authority to whom the resignations were required to be tendered as per procedure prescribed, was Chairman of Panchayat Samiti and acknowledgment was not issued in this regard as required under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1962.