BABANRAO UTTAMRAO JADHAV Vs. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Petitioner is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Borgaon. On 13.09.2013 the Petitioner gave letter of resignation to Respondent No. 4 i.e. Chairman of Panchayat Samiti, Georai. The same was placed in the meeting on 28.09.2013. In the said meeting the Petitioner withdrew his resignation. The said fact is recorded in Resolution No. 5 of the meeting dated 28.09.2013. On 19.10.2013 Petitioner filed representation before the Collector communicating that he has withdrawn the resignation in the said meeting and the same was not accepted. The Respondent No. 6 gave a report to the Block Development Office on 22nd October, 2013 intimating that the Petitioner has withdrawn his resignation in the meeting dated 28.09.2013. The Respondent No. 1 passed an order on 11th November, 2013 declaring the post of Sarpanch vacant and directing election for the post of Sarpanch. The same is assailed in the present petition.

(2.) Mr. Gore, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, the Petitioner on 28.09.2013 before the said resignation was accepted has withdrawn the resignation. The same is recorded vide Resolution No. 5 of the meeting dated 28.09.2013. According to the learned counsel, once the resignation is withdrawn before it is accepted there is no resignation in the eyes of law. The resignation has not taken effect. As such, no question arises of the post becoming vacant. The learned counsel submits that, the Petitioner is not disputing the genuineness of his resignation. The Petitioner categorically accepts that he has tendered the resignation vide resignation letter dated 13.09.2013. However, before the same was placed in the meeting for acceptance as per Sub -section 6 of Section 29 read with section 34 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 the Petitioner withdrew the resignation. It was erroneous on the part of the Collector to declare the post having become vacant. According to the learned counsel, even if, there is no specific direction / order of any authority with regard to withdrawal of resignation however as a future date for acceptance is laid down and withdrawal prior to the said date would make the resignation non est. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of Division Bench of this court in a case of, Rajesh S/o. Matadin Jaiswal and others V/s. Village Panchayat, Wadi reported in 1987 (1) Bom. C. R. 528 and another judgment of Division Bench of this court in a case of, Kumudini Ratilal Bhagat and others V/s. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 1987 (1) Bom. C. R. 634.

(3.) Mr. Nimbalkar, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 9 to 11, 13 and 14 submits that, there is no withdrawal of resignation in the eyes of law. The Petitioner in his letter has not stated that he is withdrawing the resignation however has only stated that the said resignation be rejected. As such, there is no withdrawal of resignation. The learned counsel further submits that, the resignation was placed in the meeting of the Panchayat dated 28.09.2013. As per Section 29 (6) (a) when there is no dispute regarding the genuineness the resignation takes effect after expiry of 7 days from the date of which it is placed before the meeting of the Panchayat. As per Section 29 (3), if, the person who has tendered the resignation wants to dispute the genuineness of the resignation he has to refer such dispute to the Collector within 7 days from the date his resignation is placed before the meeting of the Panchayat. In the present case, the Petitioner has moved the Collector after 21 days of the said meeting being conducted. According to the learned counsel, the expression "genuineness of the resignation" will have to be given a wider connotation. It would even include within its ambit withdrawal of resignation. If, the said expression is not given a wider connotation then, the provision of sub - section 3 of section 29 would be rendered redundant. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court in a case of Ravindra Bhaskar Lumpataki V/s. Chairman and others reported in 2006 (6) Bom. C. R. 595.