KUMUDINI RATILAL BHAGAT SOU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Village Panchayat for Village Poyanad in Raigad District came to be established under section 9 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act ("the Act"). In due course on observing the procedural formalities the election to the said Panchayat came to be held from time to time for the statutory tenure of five years. For the relevant period the elections to the Panchayat were held under section 11 of the said Act on 27th of May, 1981 for a tenure of five years. The scheduled total strength was 9 and as such 9 persons came to be elected. It so happened that two out of them had to make their exit on account of incurring certain disqualification, one because of his persistent absence from attending the meeting of the Panchayat and the other for being a defaulter in the payment of property taxes. On account of their departure there remained in the field 7 persons. The first petitioner herein was elected as the Sarpanch while the fourth petitioner as the Up-Sarpanch. Though the said Panchayat smoothly functioned for some time, a difficulty arose on account of an event that occurred on 18th of May, 1985 when it is alleged that petitioner Nos. 4 to 7 gave notices or letters of resignation to the Sarpanch and thereby withdrawing from the office as members of the said Panchayat. Receipts for those letters were also given to them. It is alleged that one set was given to the Gramsevak. As per the rule and the procedure prescribed under the Act the Sarpanch was under obligation to place the said resignations in the next meeting held by the Panchayat. The said next meeting was scheduled to be convened on 27th of May, 1985 on which date the said letters of resignation were to come up before the Panchayat. However, the complexation changed on account of the intervening circumstance when admittedly these very four petitioners by separate letters addressed and handed over to the Sarpanch on 25th of May, 1985 withdrew their resignations which they had tendered on 18th of May, 1985. The said meeting was convened on the scheduled date on 27th of May, 1985 when the fact of these four petitioners having sent their resignations and having also withdrawn those on that particular date was placed before the meeting. These petitioners also attended the said meeting. Since the resignations came to be withdrawn even before the meeting was held the Sarpanch felt it unnecessary to have any follow up action. In fact these petitioners attended some of the subsequent meeting also and participated in the transactions.

(2.) However, inspite of this feature the Block Development Officer felt that these petitioners had resigned and therefore, since the strength of the Panchayat had fallen below 50 per cent, as required under the Act, a case was made out for dissolution of the Panchayat under section 145(1-A) of the Act. Being of this opinion he forwarded his report to the Chief Executive officer, Zilla Parishad, Alibag giving these details and contemplating an action of dissolution under the said provisions. The Chief Executive Officer also carried the same feeling that these persons had resigned and therefore an action under section 145(1-A) of the Act had become inevitable. On the basis of this opinion he forwarded in turn his own report to the Commissioner, Konkan Division, for passing suitable action as suggested by him for dissolution of the Panchayat. The Commissioner accepted the said recommendations since also being of the opinion that the coram had fallen below the prescribed limit under the Act and therefore the Panchayat could not function. He thus directed dissolution of the Panchayat with the necessary consequence of appointment of an Administrator. A follow up action was taken to implement these directions with the result that the said Panchayat was declared as having been dissolved and the Block Development Officer was appointed as the Administrator to the said Panchayat. This order which is being impugned was passed on 9th July, 1985 by the Commissioner, Konkan Division. In pursuance of this order the said Block Development Officer in due course took charge of the affairs of the Panchayat. This petition challenges the validity of the said order dated 9th of July, 1985 under which the Panchayat was dissolved.

(3.) Shri N.B. Shah, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, mainly contended that on the basis on the admitted facts which was not controverted even on this forum the resignations having been withdrawn even before the date on which the meeting was convened, there were no resignations in fact in existence and at any rate the petitioner Nos. 4 to 7 could not be said to have resigned their office and if that be so, then there is no question of the coram being falling below the prescribed limit and as such there was no question of dissolving the Panchayat and thereafter appointing the Administrator. He also canvassed some other contentions mainly to the effect that under the Act the resignations would become effective within only seven days and this according to him will have to be computed after those are placed in the meeting. Shri V.A. Gangal, the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Shri P.D. Kamerkar and Shri D.A. Ajgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the other respondents, countered these contentions. An endeavour was made to submit that the moment these resignations are tendered or at least when they are received by the Sarpanch those become final and irrevocable and, therefore, withdrawal thereof subsequently even assuming before the first meeting would be of no consequence. It was also contended inter alia that the span of seven days prescribed in some of the clauses of section 29 of the Act has a restricted field since that relates to the element of time available to the member to raise the dispute before the Collector about the genuineness of the resignation and a further period of seven days is correspondingly given to move the Commissioner if he is aggrieved by the decision of the Collector and according to them this period of seven days has no relevance or nexus with the effectiveness of the resignation.