[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Yogesh Ashok Deshmukh And Anr vs Nilima Nandu Mhatre And Ors on 22 January, 2026
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2026:BHC-AS:3640
WP 12689-2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12689 OF 2025
1. Yogesh Ashok Deshmukh
Age: 39 years, Ex. Dy. Sarpanch,
Grampanchayat Mharal, Residing at -
Mharal, Tq. - Kalyan, District: Thane.
2. Laxman Govind Kongere
Age - 64 years,
Residing at - Mharal, Tq. Kalyan,
District: Thane. ..Petitioners
Versus
1. Nilima Nandu Mhatre
Age - 42 years,
Sarpanch Grampanchayat Mharal,
Tq.- Kalyan, Dist: Thane.
2. Divisional Commissioner,
Konkan Division, (Establishment Branch)
Having its office at 112, 1st Floor,
Kokan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai - 400 614.
3. Additional Collector, Thane
Having its office at 18, Administrative
Building, 1st Floor, Collector Office, Thane
4. Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Kalyan,
Kalyan, Dist: Thane.
5. Amol Ulhas Murbade
Gramsevak, Mharal,
Tq. Kalyan, Dist: Thane
6. Deepak Vaman Ahire
Age - 45 years,
Residing at - Mharal, Tq. Kalyan,
Dist: Thane.
7. Monika Mukesh Gaikwad
SAINATH 1/29
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 23:12:54 :::
WP 12689-2025.DOC
Age - 38 years,
Residing at - Mharal, Tq. Kalyan,
Dist: Thane
8. Nanda Pandurang Mhatre
Age - 54 years,
Residing at - Mharal, Tq. Kalyan
Dist: Thane.
9. Vikas Gopal Pawar
Age - 42 years,
Residing at - Mharal, Tq. Kalyan
Dist: Thane
10 Amruta Mahesh Deshmukh
Age - 38 years,
Residing at - Mharal, Tq. Kalyan
Dist: Thane
11 Prakash Baban Chaudhary
Age - 55 years,
Residing at - Mharal, Tq. Kalyan
Dist: Thane
12 Pragati Prakash Kongere
Age - 45 years,
Residing at - Mharal, Tq. Kalyan
Dist: Thane
13 Anita Balkrishna Deshmukh
Age - 42 years,
Residing at - Mharal, Tq. Kalyan
Dist: Thane
14 Ashwini Nilesh Deshmukh
Age - 39 years,
Residing at - Mharal, Tq. Kalyan
Dist: Thane
15 Vedika Vivek Gambhirrao
Age - 38 years,
Residing at - Mharal, Tq. Kalyan
Dist: Thane
SAINATH 2/29
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 23:12:54 :::
WP 12689-2025.DOC
16 Kishore Govind Wadekar
Age - 40 years,
Residing at - Mharal, Tq. Kalyan
Dist: Thane
17 Pramod Purushottam Deshmukh
Age - 55 years,
Residing at - Mharal, Tq. Kalyan ...Respondents
Dist: Thane
Mr. Avinash Fatangare a/w Santosh Sawant & Ms. Archana
Shelar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Patil, for Respondent No. 1
Mr. B. B. Dahiphale, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3-State.
Ms. Prerna Agavekar, Mr. Sagar Bhoir i/by Ashish Gaikwad,
for Respondent No. 4.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 12th JANUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 22nd JANUARY 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the
consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. The petitioners, who are the Deputy Sarpanch and
Member of the village panchayat - Mharal, take exception to a
judgment and order dated 17th February, 2025 passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division in an appeal under
Section 29(4) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959,
whereby the appeal preferred by the Respondent No. 1,
Sarpanch of village panchayat - Mharal, came to be allowed by
WP 12689-2025.DOC
setting aside an order dated 23rd September, 2024 rejecting the
dispute application, being D.A. No. 01/2024, preferred by the
Respondent No. 1 in regard to the genuineness of the
resignation of the post of Sarpanch tendered by the Respondent
No. 1.
3. The background facts necessary for the determination of
this petition can be stated, in brief, as under:-
3.1 In the election to the post of Sarpanch held on 14 th
November, 2022, the Respondent No. 1 was elected unopposed.
On 18th March, 2024, the Respondent No. 1 tendered
resignation of the post of Sarpanch in the prescribed form. The
petitioners witnessed the Respondent No. 1 putting signature on
the said resignation. The petitioners thus signed the said
resignation as witnesses thereto.
3.2 In the wake of said resignation, the Block Development
Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kalyan (R-4) gave directions to the
Gram Sevak of the village panchayat (R-5) to convene a meeting
of the village panchayat to ascertain the genuineness of the
resignation tendered by the Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, on
28th March, 2024, a meeting of the village panchayat was held.
WP 12689-2025.DOC
3.3 In the said meeting the Respondent No. 1 raised an issue
about improper acknowledgment of the resignation letter. It was
inter alia contended that, the Competent Authority had not
issued the acknowledgment as warranted by the provisions of
the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 and the Bombay
Village Panchayat (Delivery of Notice of Resignation) Rules,
1965. The Respondent No. 1 professed to contest the
correctness of the procedure and disowned the resignation.
3.4 In the said meeting, however, the village panchayat
unanimously passed a resolution that, the signature of the
Respondent No. 1 and the witnesses on the said resignation
were duly verified. It was noted that, there was no dispute over
the fact that the resignation bore the signature of the
Respondent No. 1 and the petitioners as witnesses.
3.5 Being aggrieved, the Respondent No. 1 raised a dispute
before the Collector under Section 29(3) of the Act, 1959. By an
order dated 23rd September, 2024, the Additional District
Collector, Thane rejected the dispute opining that, there was no
controversy over the fact that, the resignation dated 18 th March,
2004 bore the signature of the Respondent No. 1. In the meeting
of the village panchayat held on 18th March, 2024 to verify the
WP 12689-2025.DOC
genuineness of the resignation, the Respondent No. 1 did not
dispute the factum of resignation. In the view of the Additional
District Collector, the fact that the acknowledgment of the
resignation was not in the form prescribed under Rules, 1965
did not detract materially from genuineness of the resignation.
3.6 Being aggrieved, the Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal
before the Divisional Commissioner. The petitioners were also
impleaded as party respondents to the said appeal.
3.7 After appraisal of the material on record, by the impugned
judgment and order, the Divisional Commissioner was
persuaded to overturn the finding of the District Collector. In
the light of the correspondence which the Respondent No. 1 had
addressed to the Block Development Officer and the stand taken
by the Respondent No. 1 in the meeting of the village panchayat
dated 28th March, 2024, that the Respondent No. 1 did not put
signature on the resignation in the presence of the Block
Development Officer and there was discrepancy in the
acknowledgment issued by the Office of Panchayat Samiti and
the one annexed to the communication addressed to the
Secretary of the village panchayat, the Divisional Commissioner
observed that, the procedure prescribed for tendering the
WP 12689-2025.DOC
resignation of the Sarpanch/Members of the village panchayat
under the Act, 1959 and the Rules, 1965 was not scrupulously
followed. Therefore, the resignation was not lawful. Resultantly,
the order passed by the District Collector was set aside.
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioners invoked the writ
jurisdiction.
5. I have heard Mr. Avinash Fatangare - the learned Counsel
for the petitioners, Mr. Sanjay Patil - the learned Counsel for the
Respondent No. 1, Mr. Dahiphale - the learned AGP for the
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 State and Mr. Prerna Agavekar - the
learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4. With the assistance
of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the
material on record.
6. Mr. Fatangare - the learned Counsel for the petitioners,
took a slew of exceptions to the impugned order. First and
foremost, according to Mr. Fatangare, the Divisional
Commissioner lost sight of the pivotal fact that, the tender of
resignation by the Respondent No. 1, as such, was never
disputed. Once the factum of resignation was unequivocally
admitted then, there was no scope for raising a dispute about
WP 12689-2025.DOC
the genuineness of the resignation by putting forth peripheral
issues.
7. Secondly and, at best, the challenge on behalf of the
Respondent No. 1 was confined to the irregularity in
acknowledging the receipt of resignation tendered by the
Respondent No. 1. Mr. Fatangare would urge, the
acknowledgment issued by the administrator-cum-Block
Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kalyan, which was
annexed to the communication to the Gram-Sevak (R-5),
satisfied the requirement of Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1965. The
Divisional Commissioner fell in error in giving undue weight to
the copy of the acknowledgment (Exh. A) issued by the inward
clerk.
8. Thirdly, Mr. Fatangare urged with a degree of vehemence
that, even in the meeting of the village panchayat convened on
28th March, 2024 to consider the genuineness of the signatures
of Respondent No. 1 and witnesses on the said resignation, the
Respondent No. 1 did not contend that, she had not tendered
the resignation. Issue of improper acknowledgment of the
resignation was sought to be raised by the Respondent No. 1 to
question the validity of the process. Since, no formal acceptance
WP 12689-2025.DOC
of the resignation is warranted, and the resignation takes effect
after the seventh day of the meeting, in which the genuineness
of the signature of the person tendering the resignation and the
witnesses is verified, the Divisional Commissioner committed a
manifest error in setting aside the order passed by the District
Collector, on the ground that, the procedure prescribed under
the Act, 1959 and the Rules, 1965 was not scrupulously
followed.
9. Lastly, Mr. Fatangare would submit that, Rule 3(3) of the
Rules, 1965 is directory in nature. The failure to issue
acknowledgment in strict compliance of the said rule does not
vitiate the factum of resignation, if it is otherwise established.
10. In opposition to this, Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for
Respondent No. 1, supported the impugned order. It was
submitted that, the acknowledgment was clearly in breach of
the mandatory provisions contained in Rule 3(3) of the Rules,
1965. The legislature has prescribed the procedure and forms in
which the resignation should be tendered and acknowledged.
Thus, the acknowledgment of the resignation by the inward
clerk in express violation of the form prescribed for issuing such
WP 12689-2025.DOC
acknowledgment was clearly in infringement of the mandatory
rules.
11. Mr. Patil countered the submissions on behalf of the
petitioners that, the Rule 3 (3) is directory in nature. Such a
construction would defeat the object of the Rules, 1965. It was
submitted that, once the resignation process was invalidated,
the District Collector could not have rejected the dispute as the
Respondent No. 1 had immediately raised the issues of improper
acknowledgment of the resignation and the process having been
vitiated on account of non-compliance of the Rules. The
Divisional Commissioner was, therefore, justified in correcting
the error committed by the District Collector.
12. As a second limb of the submission, Mr. Patil would urge
that, in the meeting of panchayat held on 18 th March, 2024, the
Respondent No. 1 had categorically disputed the resignation
and disowned the same. In this view of the matter, the
Divisional Commissioner was justified in returning a finding
that, there was no lawful resignation and, in any event, the
same stood withdrawn. To lend support to this submission, the
learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 placed reliance on the
decisions of this Court in the cases of Mina Kalyan Devdhe Vs.
WP 12689-2025.DOC
Commissioner, Nashik Division & Ors.1, Sudhakar Yashwant
Warule Vs. Gramsevak & Ors.2, and Kalavati Rajendra Kokale
Vs. State of Maharashtra3.
13. In the light of the aforesaid submissions canvassed across
the bar, the following questions crop up for consideration:
I) Whether the non-compliance of the provisions
contained in Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1965 in the matter of
issuing acknowledgment of receipt of resignation, vitiates
the process and renders the resignation invalid and
ineffective?
II) Whether, in the facts of the case, the stand taken by
the Respondent No. 1 in the meeting of the village
panchayat, amounted to withdrawal of the resignation?
14. To appreciate the controversy in a correct perspective
recourse to the provisions contained in Maharashtra Village
Panchayats Act, 1959 and the Rules, 1965 becomes imperative.
15. Sections 29 governs the resignation by a member of village
panchayat and the disputes in relation thereto. Section 29 reads
as under:-
1 2019 (1) Mh.L.J. 212
2 2025 (3) ALL MR 487
3 2025 (3) AIR Bom. R 86
WP 12689-2025.DOC
[29. Registration of member and disputes regarding
resignation
(1) Any member who is elected may resign his office by
writing under his hand addressed to the Sarpanch and
the Sarpanch may resign his office of member by writing
under his hand addressed to the Chairman of the
Panchayat Samiti. The resignation shall be delivered in
the manner prescribed.
(2) On receipt of the resignation under sub-section (1),
the Sarpanch or, as the case may be, the Chairman of the
Panchayat Samiti shall [forward it within seven days to
the Secretary] who shall place it before the meeting of the
panchayat next following.
(3) If any member or the Sarpanch whose resignation is
placed before the meeting of the panchayat wants to
dispute genuineness of the resignation, he shall refer such
dispute to the Collector within seven days from the date
on which his resignation is placed before the meeting of
the panchayat. On the receipt of dispute, the Collector
shall decide it, as far as possible within fifteen days from
the date of its receipt.
(4) The member or Sarpanch aggrieved by the decision
of the Collector may, within seven days from the date of
receipt of the Collector's decision, appeal to the
Commissioner who shall decide it, as far as possible,
within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the appeal.
(5) the decision of the Collector, subject to the decision
of the Commissioner in Appeal, shall be final.
(6) The resignation shall take effect, -
(a) where there is no dispute regarding the
genuineness, after the expiry of seven days from the
WP 12689-2025.DOC
date on which it is placed before the meeting of the
panchayat;
(b) where the dispute is referred to the
Collector and no appeal is made to the Commissioner
after the expiry of seven days from the date of
rejection of the dispute by the Collector;
(c) where an appeal is made to the
Commissioner, immediately after the appeal is rejected
by the Commissioner.]
16. Section 34 of the Act, 1959 deals with resignation of office
by Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. It reads as under:-
[34. Resignation by Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch
(1) The Sarpanch may resign his office by writing under
his hand addressed to the Chairman of the Panchayat
Samiti. [* * *]
(2) The Upa-Sarpanch may resign his office by writing
under his hand addressed to the Sarpanch. [* * *]
(3) The notice of resignation shall be delivered in the
manner prescribed.]
[(4) The provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6)
of section 29 shall mutatis mutandis apply to the
resignations tendered under sub-sections (1) and (2) of
this section as they apply to the resignation tendered
under sub-section (1) of that section.]
17. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (v-a) and
(xlvii) of sub-section (2) of section 176, read with section 29 and
sub-Section (3) of 34 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act,
1958 (Bom III of 1959), the State Government has framed rules,
titled "The Bombay Village Panchayat (Delivery of Notice of
Resignation) Rules, 1965".
WP 12689-2025.DOC
18. Rule 3 of the Rules, 1965 regulates the manner of delivery
of resignation or notice of resignation.. It reads as under:-
3. Manner of delivery of notices.-
[(1) Subjects to the provisions of sub-rule (2)(a) the
resignation of the office of a member given under sub-
section (1) of section 29 shall be delivered by the
member to the Sarpanch and by the Sarpanch to the
Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti;
(b) the notice of resignation of the Office of Sarpanch
given under sub-section (1) of section 34 shall be
delivered by the Sarpanch to the Chairman of the
Panchayat Samiti;
(c) the notice of resignation of the office of Upa-
Sarpanch given under sub-section (2) of section 34
shall be delivered by the Upa-Sarpanch to the
Sarpanch.]
(2) Every [such resignation or notice of resignation]
[shall be in Form I and] shall be delivered by registered
post with acknowledgment due or personally or through
any person duly authorized [in writing] in this behalf by
the person who gives [resignation or, as the case may
be, notice of resignation].
(3) The authority to which such notice is delivered
shall forthwith acknowledge receipt of the same and
issue a receipt [in Form II] in token of having received
such notice.
19. As the controversy revolves around the improper
acknowledgment of the receipt of resignation, it may be apposite
to extract Form I and Form II, which prescribe the form of
resignation and receipt for resignation/notice of resignation to
WP 12689-2025.DOC
be given or sent to the person delivering the resignation/notice
of resignation respectively, as under:-
[Form I]
[See rule 3(2)]
Form of [Resignation/Notice of Resignation]
To
........................
........................
Sir,
I hereby tender [*Resignation/*Notice of my resignation] of
the office of ......... with effect from .......................
forenoon/afternoon.
Place ................... (Signature) ..............................
Date .................... (Designation) .............................
Signed in the presence of -
I ................................................ ....................................
Full name and address of a witness Signature of the witness
II ............................................... .....................................
Full name and address of a witness Signature of the witness
----------------
Form [II]
[See rule 3(3)]
[*Receipt for Resignation/*Notice of Resignation]
[To be given or sent to the person delivering the
*resignation/*notice of resignation]
The [*Resignation/*the notice of resignation] of the office of
............ held by ........................................... was delivered to
me *by registered post ................................................ through
*personally by
WP 12689-2025.DOC
...................................................duly authorized [in writing]
by the said .................................................................
Date : Signature and designation of
authority receiving the notice of resignation.
20. A conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Section
29 and 34 of the Act, 1959 indicates that, while recognizing the
reality of the elected representative resigning from the post in a
democratic polity, and thus making enabling provisions for the
same, the legislature has, in its wisdom, endeavored to regulate
the manner and the procedure of tendering the resignation. The
member of the village panchayat may resign from his office by
writing under his hand addressed to the Sarpanch. The
Sarpanch may resign his office of member by writing under his
hand addressed to the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. The
Sarpanch may also resign his office of Sarpanch in the like
manner. The Upa-Sarpanch may resign from his office by
writing under his hand addressed to the Sarpanch. The
legislature has made enabling provision for resignation from the
office of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch as well as the membership
of the village panchayat itself. The legislature has however
advisably mandated the manner in which the resignation shall
be delivered.
WP 12689-2025.DOC
21. Both Sections 29(1) and 34(3) thus provide that, the
resignation/notice of resignation shall be delivered in the
manner prescribed. Under Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 1965, every
resignation/notice of resignation shall be in Form I. The said
Sub-rule further prescribes the mode of delivery of resignation,
namely, by registered post with acknowledgment due or
personally or through any person duly authorized in writing by
the Sarpanch/Upa-Sarpanch or Member, who tenders the
resignation. The legislature has further taken care to provide
the manner in which the receipt of the resignation be evidenced
and acknowledged. Under Rule 3(3), the authority to which such
notice is delivered, is enjoined to acknowledge the receipt of the
same in Form II in token of having received such notice.
22. A cumulative reading of the provisions contained in
Section 29 and 34 of the Act, 1959 and the Rules, 1965 would
indicate that, all facets in the process of resignation of the office
of member or Sarpanch/Upa-Sarpanch have been addressed.
First, the resignation has to be in Form No. I in writing under
his hand by the person resigning from the office. Second, it
should be addressed to the specified authority i.e. Sarpanch or
Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. Third, such resignation shall
WP 12689-2025.DOC
be delivered in the modes prescribed. Fourth, the authority
shall acknowledge the resignation in the Form II. Upon receipt of
the resignation, the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti is tasked
with the duty to forward it within seven days to the Secretary of
the village panchayat for placing it before the meeting of the
panchayat next following. If the person whose resignation is
placed before the meeting of the panchayat disputes the
genuineness of the resignation, he has an avenue to refer such
dispute to the Collector from the date on which the resignation
is placed before the meeting of the panchayat.
23. In the event, there is no dispute regarding the
genuineness, the resignation shall take effect after the expiry of
seven days from the date on which it is placed before the
meeting of the panchayat. Otherwise, after expiry of seven days
from the date of the rejection of the dispute by the Collector, in
case no appeal is preferred, and, in case an appeal is preferred
before the Commissioner, immediately after the appeal is
rejected by the Commissioner.
24. There is no specific provision for acceptance of the
resignation. Neither the Sarpanch nor the Chairman of the
Panchayat Samiti, or for that matter, the Village Panchayat, is
WP 12689-2025.DOC
empowered to accept the resignation. On the contrary, by a
deeming fiction, the resignation comes into force, upon the
happening of the specified events, which, in turn, are dependent
upon the contingency of a dispute being raised by the person
whose resignation is placed before the meeting of the panchayat.
25. As is evident, the resignation takes effect from the future
date and does not operate eo instante. This interval of time gives
rise to the questions of the permissibility of withdrawal of the
resignation before it comes into effect. Evidently, there is neither
a specific provision which enables the withdrawal of the
resignation nor a particular form prescribed for the same. If the
person who resigns from the post, makes a representation and
seeks withdrawal of resignation before it takes effect, the general
principle that a resignation can be withdrawn before it takes
effect applies.
26. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh s/o
Metadin Jaiswal & Ors. Vs. Village Panchayat, Wadi4,
enunciated that, the right to tender resignation and the right to
withdraw the resignation are inter-related since both these acts
4 1987(1) Bom. C.R. 528
WP 12689-2025.DOC
depend upon the discretion of the person tendering the
resignation. The observations of the Division Bench in
Paragraph No. 6 are material and hence extracted below:-
"6. It is true that there is no specific provision
regarding this withdrawal of resignation. But in our
view such a provision is not necessary. In fact,
tendering of resignation is a matter within the volition
and unilateral discretion of the Member itself and it
only expresses his intention to vacate the Office which
he occupies. There is, however, a provision in the Act
that even after the expression of such an intention to
withdraw from Office, the resignation does not
become effective forthwith, but has to be placed before
the subsequent Committee meeting of the Village
Panchayat and it becomes effective only seven days
after it is placed before the Committee Meeting and
that too in case there is no dispute regarding the
genuineness of the resignation letters. The right to
tender resignation and the right to withdraw the
resignation are inter-related since both these acts
depend on the discretion of the person tendering the
resignation. However, if there is a specific bar in the
statute itself that a resignation once tendered cannot
be withdrawn then it is an entirely different matter. In
the present Act there is no such specific bar and it
cannot be brought in even impliedly."
(emphasis supplied)
27. Following the aforesaid pronouncement in the case of
Babanrao Uttamrao Jadhav Vs. Additional Collector & Ors. 5,
another Division Bench observed as under:-
5 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 16332
WP 12689-2025.DOC
"8. When a statute lays down that the
resignation would become effective on a further
date then, in absence of provision prohibiting
withdrawal of resignation the said resignation
can be withdrawn at any time before it operates
to become effective. The said right is inherent in
every member in absence of any provision
prohibiting withdrawal of resignation. It has been
held by the Division Bench of this Court in a
case of Rajesh S/o. Matadin Jaiswal V. Village
Panchayat, Wadi referred to supra that the right
to tender resignation and the right to withdraw
the resignation are inter related as both these
acts depend on the discretion of the person
tendering the resignation. The same view was
taken by the another Division Bench in a case of
Kumudini Ratilal Bhagat V. State of Maharashtra
referred to supra.
(emphasis supplied)
28. Keeping the aforesaid interplay between the right to resign
and the right to withdraw the resignation, the anwers to the
questions formulated above are required to be explored.
29. The thrust of the submission of Mr. Fatangare was that,
though the Form in which the resignation shall be delivered is
mandatory, yet, the Form in which the receipt of resignation is
to be acknowledged is not mandatory. Acknowledgment is to be
issued by way of token of receipt of the resignation and nothing
WP 12689-2025.DOC
more and, therefore, the Respondent No. 1 could not have raised
the dispute having voluntarily tendered the resignation.
30. On textual interpretation of the provisions contained in
Section 29(1) and Section 34(3) of the Act, 1959, it becomes
abundantly clear that, the legislature has used the word 'shall'
in the matter of delivery of the resignation. Rule 3(2) uses the
word 'shall' in the matter of the mode in which the resignation is
to be delivered. Rule 3(3) also uses the word 'shall' for
acknowledging the receipt of resignation and thereby enjoins the
authority concerned to acknowledge the receipt of the
resignation and issue receipt in Form II.
31. If the provisions contained in Section 29(1) and 34(3) are
read in juxta-position with Rule 3(2) and (3) of the Rules, 1965,
along with the prescribed forms, then the anxiety of the
legislature in insisting that, the resignations must be delivered
and acknowledged in such manner as rule out the possibility of
elements which vitiate the free consent and volition influencing
the decision to resign the elected post, becomes evident. In my
view, Rule 3(3) and Form II are required to be construed,
keeping in view the object of the prescribing mode of
WP 12689-2025.DOC
resignation, authority to whom it should be delivered, and the
mode of delivery of the resignation.
32. Form II mandates that, the authority to whom it is to be
delivered under the provisions of the Act,1959 and Rules, 1965,
shall specifiy the person who delivered the resignation, and the
mode of delivery. Therefore, the broad submission on behalf of
the petitioners that, the non-compliance of the mandate
contained in Rule 3(3) is of no consequence as the
acknowledgment is merely in token of receipt of the resignation,
cannot be countenanced. Form II is designed not merely to
evidence the receipt of resignation but also to establish the
identity of the person who tendered the resignation and the
mode in which the said resignation was delivered. The time and
place also assumes significance as under Section 29(2), the
authority is bound to forward it to the secretary within seven
days of the receipt of such resignation. An inference, therefore,
becomes inescapable that, the provisions contained in Rule 3(3)
are an inseparable part of the mandatory framework for the
delivery of resignation from the elected office.
33. In the case of Sudhakar Warule Vs. Gram Sevak & Ors.
(supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court emphasized that,
WP 12689-2025.DOC
the methodology prescribed under Section 29 and 34 of the Act,
1959 and Rule 3 of the Rules, 1965 must be strictly followed.
Any material departure from the procedure prescribed from the
Resignation Rules would render the process of resignation
invalid. The observations in Para No. 25 to 27 reads as under:-
"25. Therefore, the methodology prescribed under
Sections 29 and 34 of the Village Panchayat Act and
Rule 3 of the Resignation Rules must be strictly
followed while dealing with the issue of resignation of
a Member, Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch. It must be
borne in mind that the act of acceptance of
resignation unseats a democratically elected member,
Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch and therefore strict
compliance with the provisions of the Act and the
Rules is all the more necessary and even a single flaw
in following of the mandatory provisions would render
the act of acceptance of resignation illegal.
26. In my view therefore, absence of material about
receipt of resignation by Sarpanch, handing it over to
the Gram Sevak and more importantly, failure on the
part of the Sarpanch to issue Form No. II mandated
under sub-rule 3 of the Resignation Rules is clearly
fatal in the light of dispute created by the petitioner
with regard to the act of tendering of resignation.
Acceptance of resignation of a elected member,
Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch has drastic consequences
and therefore no leeway can be permitted in the area
of strict following of the methodology prescribed under
the Act and Rules. This is not a case where there is an
admission on the part of the Petitioner about the act
of tendering of resignation. In a case where there is no
dispute about the act of tendering of resignation, mere
failure to issue an acknowledgment under Rule 3(3) of
the Resignation Rules may not always entail the
consequence of rendering illegal the acceptance of
resignation in each and every case. However, in every
case where the Member, Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch
creates a dispute about the very act of tendering of
resignation, non-following of provisions of sub-rule (3)
WP 12689-2025.DOC
of Rule 3 of the Resignation Rules would necessarily
render the event of coming into effect of the
resignation void.
27. Section 34(3) of the Village Panchayats Act
provides that "The notice of resignation shall be
delivered in the manner prescribed". Use of the word
'shall' would make the procedure prescribed in the
Resignation Rules to be mandatorily followed.
Therefore, any material departure from the procedure
prescribed in the Resignation Rules would render the
process of resignation invalid."
34. The aforesaid enunciation of law lends support to the view
which this Court is persuaded to take. Therefore, the Question
No 1 is required to be answered in the affirmative.
35. Answer to Question No. II, hinges upon the facts of the
case as emerged from the record. It is imperative to note that,
after the Respondent No. 1 delivered the resignation in Form No.
I on 18th March, 2024, the Block Development Officer, on 19 th
March, 2024, directed the Gram-Sevak to place the said
resignation before next meeting of the village panchayat.
Instantly, the Respondent No. 1 raised a dispute with the Block
Development Officer that, the acknowledgment of the
resignation was not issued in the prescribed manner. And there
was breach of the Rules, 1965. On 27th March, 2024, the Block
Development Officer advised the Respondent No. 1 to raise the
dispute in the meeting of the village panchayat which was
WP 12689-2025.DOC
scheduled to be held for verification of genuineness of the said
resignation.
36. It is pertinent to note, in the meeting held on 18 th March,
2024, the Respondent No. 1 raised the said dispute again and
specifically stated that, she was withdrawing the resignation
tendered by her. The discrepancy in the acknowledgment issued
by the inward clerk and a copy of the acknowledgment annexed
to the communication addressed by the Block Development
Officer to the Gram-Sevak was highlighted.
37. It would be imperative to note that, none of the
acknowledgments satisfy the requirement of Form II. The first
acknowledgment simply contains an endorsement of inward
clerk, Panchayat Samiti, Kalyan. The second though records
that, the resignation was delivered in person by the Respondent
No. 1, yet, the name and designation of the authority
acknowledging the said receipt do not find mention. Indeed,
there is endorsement that, the administrator-cum-Block
Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti had "seen" the said
resignation.
38. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid discrepancies and the
stand of the Respondent No. 1 in the meeting of the village
WP 12689-2025.DOC
panchayat, the Divisional Commissioner held that, the
procedure prescribed under the Act, 1959 and the Rules, 1965
in the matter of resignation was not scrupulously followed.
39. The view taken by the Divisional Commissioner appears to
be in consonance with the legislative object. Prescription of
defined procedure with the role of specified authorities was to
ensure that, the vitiating elements of fraud, coercion, undue
influence and duress do not operate in driving an elected
member to resign from office. If the receipt of the resignation
was not acknowledged in the manner prescribed, the possibility
of the resignation being affected by the vitiating elements lurks.
In that situation, if the person concerned disputes and
specifically disowns the resignation in the meeting of the village
panchayat, the genuineness of the resignation becomes suspect.
Moreover, one cannot lose sight of the fact that, the resignation
is a product of the unilateral volition and discretion of the
person tendering the resignation. If such person disputes the
same with reference to the infraction of the procedure, before
the resignation takes effect, the insistence to bind him down to
such resignation may not be conducive to a free and fair
electoral democracy.
WP 12689-2025.DOC
40. For the foregoing reasons, in the facts of the case at hand,
I am persuaded to hold that, the stand taken by the Respondent
No. 1 in the meeting of the village panchayat amounted to
withdrawal of the resignation. The fact that, there was no
dispute about the tendering of resignation cannot be the sole
criteria on which the legality and validity of the resignation
could be tested. Under the provisions of the Act, 1959 and the
Rules, 1965, strict compliance with the procedure, which is
prescribed with the object of arresting unscrupulous and
improper practices in the matter of resignation of elected
representatives, the factum of signature on the person
concerned on the resignation itself cannot be the be all and end
all. The entire process has to be in conformity with the Rules,
1965.
41. The conspectus of aforesaid consideration is that, the
Divisional Commissioner was justified in interfering with the
order passed by the Collector who had taken a technical view of
the matter. Resultantly, in exercise of the supervisory
jurisdiction, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the
impugned order. Therefore, the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
WP 12689-2025.DOC
42. Hence the following order:
::ORDER::
(i) The Petition stands dismissed.
(ii) Rule discharged.
No costs.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
Digitally
signed by
SANTOSH
SANTOSH SUBHASH
SUBHASH KULKARNI
KULKARNI Date:
2026.01.23
19:27:22
+0530
