VINAYKUMAR PREMRATAN Vs. COLLECTOR BULDANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was directly elected as President of the Malkapur Municipal Council under S. 51, Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (the Act for short) as it stood before its amendment under Maharashtra Act No. XIX of 1981 which came into force on 28-4-1981. In this petition he alleges that about two years before the petition was filed on 22-11-1982 he had met with an accident in which he sustained a brain injury resulting in paralytical condition in the left side of his body. He, therefore, apprehending that he would not be able to discharge his duties as President ever after his recovering wrote a document purporting to be resignation of the office of President and kept it with himself in the hope that he would tender it if he would not fully recover from his paralytical condition. The petitioner further alleges that he had come out of illness without any damage and in the first week of September, 1982 he suddenly remembered that he had written his resignation and had kep it somewhere. He searched for it, but he could not trace it and therefore apprehending that it may be sent to the Collector by some persons adversely interested in him, he intimated the latter by his letter dt. 7-10-1982 that he should not act on it in case it was sent to him by mischief.

(2.) Apprehending that if the said resignation reaches the Collector, the latter may act upon it, the petitioner filed this petition on 22-11-1982 as stated above. The Collector is the only respondent in this petition. The petitioner seeks a declaration from this Court to the effect that the resignation which he had written was never executed by signing the same and it was not in accordance with law, that it had been withdrawn and was therefore of consequence even in it was received by the Collector, and that the petitioner continues to be the President of the said Municipal Council. The Collector did not appear in this Court in response to the notice before admission or even after the rule had been issued.

(3.) During the pendency of this petition four persons who claimed to be Councillors of the Municipal Council sought petition and they have been permitted to do so. Consequently, they have filed their submissions and they state that the said letter of resignation had reached the hands of the collector on 21-12-1982. They contend that the question whether the said letter of resignation was tendered by the petitioner as the President of the said Municipal Council would be question of fact which cannot be decided by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and it can be decided by the Collector after making proper inquiry.