Kalimun Balaso Nadaf v. Ld. District Collector, Kolhapur

(x) The said ‘Motion of No Confidence’ was moved in the meeting dated 24.03.2023. Out of 17 members of the said Grampanchayat, 16 members were present in the said meeting and 14 members voted in favour of the ‘Motion of No Confidence’ and 2 members voted against the motion;

(xi) The Petitioner filed Dispute Application No. 44 of

2023 before the District Collector, Kolhapur under 5 of 25 Section 35(3-B) of the said Act on 29.03.2023 and the Dispute Application has been dismissed on 22.08.2023 by the impugned order.

4. It is the main contention of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that as Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 have submitted resignation letters on 26.01.2023, they are ineligible to move a ‘Motion of No Confidence’ and ineligible to vote in the meeting held for consideration of the said ‘Motion of No Confidence’. It is their submission that the resignation letters come into effect on the date on which the same were placed before the meeting of the Grampanchayat. According to the Petitioner, resignation letters were given by Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 on 26.01.2023 and were forwarded to the Secretary on 30.01.2023 and by notice dated 02.02.2023, a meeting was called on 09.02.2023, when specifically said subject No. 9 was scheduled to be placed before the said meeting regarding perusal of the resignation letters. The said meeting was adjourned to 17.02.2023. According to learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, it is to be held that the resignation letters were placed before the meeting of the Grampanchayat by the Secretary on 17.02.2023. Therefore, the said resignation letters come into effect after a period of seven days from 09.02.2023. According to learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the Dispute Applications filed on 24.02.2023 6 of 25 are clearly barred by limitation, as the Dispute Applications have to be filed within a period of seven days from the date on which Grampanchayat and the said date is 09.02.2023. It is further submitted that, in terms of Sub-Section (6)(a) of Section 29 of the said Act, the resignation letters have come into effect after seven days from 09.02.2023. Therefore, as the resignation letters have come into effect on or before 16.02.2023, Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 cannot vote in the meeting dated 24.03.2023 in which ‘Motion of No Confidence’ has been carried. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner strongly relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shrikant Mallappa Ulegadi V. Gram Panchayat at Mouje Kadgaon & Ors., reported in 1985 SCC OnLine Bom 235 and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. V. Gopal Chandra Misra & Ors., reported in (1978) 2 SCC 301.

5. On the other hand, it is the contention of Dr. Warunjikar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 that as the meeting dated 09.02.2023 was adjourned to 17.02.2023 and on 17.02.2023, resignation letters were placed before the meeting of the Grampanchayat, the Dispute 7 of 25 Applications filed by the Respondent Nos.[3] to 11 respectively under Section 29 of the said Act on 24.02.2023 before the District Collector are well within the prescribed limitation of seven days. He submitted that the said Dispute Applications were decided on 22.08.2023 and the said decision of the District Collector is challenged before the Commissioner by filing Appeals, as provided under Section 29(4) of the said Act. It is his submission that Sub Section (6)(a) of Section 29 of the said Act clearly provides that resignation shall take effect only after the decision of the Commissioner and as the Appeal filed before the Commissioner is pending, resignations have not come into effect even till date and in any case, when ‘Motion of No Confidence’ was considered and carried in the meeting dated 24.03.2023, the resignations had not come into effect. Therefore, it is his contention that no interference is warranted in the impugned order.

6. Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to set out Section 29 of the said Act which reads as under:- “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 8 of 25 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 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.” 9 of 25 In the present case, the dispute is concerning resignation by member of the Village Panchayat. A bare perusal of Section 29 of the said Act shows that the following is the scheme of Section 29 regarding resignation by member:-

(i) An elected Member may resign his or her office by writing under his or her hand addressed to the Sarpanch. The resignation shall be delivered in the manner prescribed.

(ii) On receipt of the resignation, the Sarpanch shall forward it to the Secretary within seven days who shall place it before the next meeting of the Panchayat.

(iii) If any Member wants to dispute genuineness of the resignation, he or she shall refer such dispute to the Collector within seven days from the date on which his or her resignation is placed before the meeting of the Panchayat.

(iv) On the receipt of such dispute application, the

(v) The member 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.

(vi) The decision of the Collector, subject to the decision of the Commissioner in appeal, shall be final. 10 of 25

(vii) 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, and where the dispute is referred to the Collector, after the expiry of seven days from the date of rejection of the dispute by the Collector, where an appeal is made to the Commissioner, immediately after the appeal is rejected by the Commissioner.

7. The Scheme of Section 29 of the said Act clearly provides that the resignation of member will not come into effect immediately after the same is tendered. The resignation is required to be placed before the meeting of the Panchayat. If any member wants to dispute the genuineness of the resignation he or she has right to refer such dispute to the Collector within 7 days from the date on which his or her resignation is placed before the meeting of the Panchayat. If the decision of the Collector is against the member, he has right to challenge the same before the Commissioner and the same will come into effect immediately after the appeal is rejected by the Commissioner. Sub-Section 6 of Section 29 specifies different stages for the resignation of member to come into effect in accordance with different contingencies. If the member who has tendered resignation does not dispute the genuineness of the same then the same will come into effect after the expiry of seven days from the date on which it is placed before the meeting of the Panchayat. If the dispute is referred to the Collector after the expiry of seven days from the date of rejection of the Dispute Application by 11 of 25 the Collector. If the order of the Collector is challenged before the Commissioner within seven days from the date of receipt of the Collector’s decision then the same will come into effect immediately after the appeal is rejected by the Commissioner.

8. In the present case, most significant aspect is the seven days period from the date on which it is placed before the meeting of the Panchayat. The important issue is whether the placing of the resignation letter before the meeting of the Panchayat is a mere formality. The scheme of Section 29 of the said Act clearly shows that the resignation is required to be placed before the meeting of the Panchayat and, therefore, the same will have to be actually placed before the meeting of the Panchayat. In the present case, undisputed facts show that the resignation letters were submitted by the Respondent Nos.[3] to 11 on 26.01.2023, the same were forwarded to the Secretary on 30.01.2023, the Dispute Applications were filed by all these members i. e. Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 before the Collector on 24.02.2023 and the same were decided on 22.08.2023. The only dispute is whether the resignations were placed before the meeting of the Panchayat on 9.2.2023 or 17.2.2023.

9. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the meeting was called as per the requirements of Sub Section 2 of Section 29 of the said Act on 12 of 25 09.02.2023. Although the said meeting was adjourned, it is to be held that the resignation letters were placed before the meeting on 09.02.2023, as the same was on agenda before the said meeting. It is the submission of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that it is not important whether the said meeting was held or it was adjourned. According to learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, as the said subject was on the agenda and the meeting was held but adjourned for want of quorum, it is sufficient compliance, as contemplated under Sub-Section 2 of Section 29 of the said Act. Therefore, it has to be held that the resignations were placed before the meeting of the Panchayat on 09.02.2023 and, thus, prescribed limitation of seven days for preferring Dispute Application to the District Collector starts on 09.02.2023. Therefore, the resignation letters have immediately taken effect after seven days from 09.02.2023, i. e., on 16.02.2023. If the said contention of the Petitioner is accepted then it is obvious that the Respondent Nos.[3] to 11 are not eligible to submit ‘Motion of No Confidence’ on 17.03.2023 and also to vote in the meeting dated 24.03.2023.

10. In view of above contentions, it is necessary to set out the Minutes of the Meeting dated 09.02.2023 which read as 13 of 25 under:- ßloZlk/kkj.k ekfld lHkk fnukad & 9@2@2023 osG & nq- 2%00 okfBdk.k&xzk-ia- dk;kZy; mnxko ek- ljiap lkks] xzkeiapk;r mnxko] rk- f’kjksG;kapsdMhy ekgs- Qsczqokjh 2023 ph loZlk/kkj.k ekfld lHkk fn- 09@02@2023 jksth nqikjh fBd 2 oktrk xzk-iadk;kZy;kr vk;ksftr dj.ksr vkyh- lHkssl [kkyhyizek.ks xzk-ia- lnL; gtj >kys- 1½ Jherh dfyequ ckGklks unkQ 2½ Jh- fnyhi e/kqdj dkaCkGs 3½ lkS- nhfidk caMs’k dksGh ojhyizek.ks lnL; teys uarj fu;ekizek.ks 1@2 ¼v/kkZ rkl½ okV ikfgyh vlrk dks.khgh vU; xzk-ia- lnL; vkys ukghr- rjh lnjph lHkk dksje vHkkoh rgdqc dj.ksr vkyh- lnjph lHkk uksVhle/;s uewn fo”k;koj fn- 17@02@2023 okj ‘kqdzokj jksth nqikjh 2-00 oktrk ?ks.ksps ek- ljiap;kauh tkfgj dsysfnukad & 09@02@2023 osG & 2%40 okrgdwc lHksph uksVhl xzk-ia- uksVhl cksMkZoj izfl/n djkohloZ xzk-ia- lnL;kauk uksVhl ykxw dj.ksdkeh ek- ljiap;kauh lqfpr dsys-Þ (Emphasis added) Thus, a bare perusal of the Minutes of the Meeting dated 09.02.2023 clearly show that as the quorum was not complete, the meeting was adjourned to 17.02.2023 for consideration of the subjects mentioned in the notice. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the said resignations were placed 14 of 25 before the meeting of the Panchayat in compliance with Section 29(2) of the said Act.

11. In this behalf, it is necessary to also consider relevant rules of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959. Rules 9 and 10 of the said Rules are relevant and are set out herein below for ready reference. “9 (1) The quorum necessary for the transaction of business at a meeting of the panchayat shall be one-half of the total number of members of the panchayat, including the Sarpanch and the Upa- Sarpanch. Explanation.- If the number of members of the panchayat is odd, in calculating half the number for the purposes of quorum, fraction of a member shall be counted as one e. g. if the number of members is seven, the quorum shall be four, if the number is nine, the quorum shall be five and so on. (2) If at any time during a meeting, it shall be brought to the notice of the person presiding that the number of members present inclusive of the person presiding falls short of the required quorum, the person presiding, after waiting for a period of not less than fifteen minutes and not more than half an hour, shall adjourn the meeting to some other day, fixing such time and place as he shall think convenient and the business which remains undisposed of at such meeting shall be disposed of at the adjourned meeting or at any subsequent 15 of 25 adjournment thereof, whether there be a quorum present or not.

10. If within thirty minutes from the time appointed for a meeting, there be no quorum, the meeting if called upon the requisition of members, shall be dissolved in any other case, the person presiding shall adjourn the meeting to such hour on the following or some other day as he may reasonably fix and a notice of such adjournment shall be placed on the noticeboard at the office of the panchayat and the business which would have been brought before the original meeting, had there been a quorum thereat, shall be brought before the adjourned meeting and may be disposed of at such meeting or at any subsequent adjournment thereof whether there be a quorum present or not.” A bare perusal of the said Rules clearly shows that the quorum necessary for the transaction of business at a meeting of the Panchayat shall be one-half of the total number of members of the Panchayat, including the Sarpanch and the Upa-Sarpanch and if the quorum is not complete then, the person presiding shall adjourn the meeting to such hour on the following or some other day as he or she may reasonably fix and a notice of such adjournment shall be placed on the notice-board at the office of the Panchayat and the business which would have been brought before the original meeting, had there been a quorum thereat, 16 of 25 shall be brought before the adjourned meeting and may be disposed of at such meeting or at any subsequent adjournment thereof whether there be a quorum present or not. Thus, the Rules clearly show that if quorum is not complete then the meeting has to be adjourned and accordingly, on 09.02.2023, the meeting was adjourned to 17.02.2023. It is also significant to note that Rules contemplates that if such meeting is adjourned, the business which would have been brought before the original meeting, had there been a quorum thereat, shall be brought before the adjourned meeting and may be disposed of at such meeting or at any subsequent adjournment thereof whether there be a quorum present or not. Thus, it is clear that if there is no quorum then the meeting has to be adjourned and for the adjourned meeting, quorum is not required for completion of the business. Thus, it is very clear that in absence of quorum at the first instance no business can be transacted and the meeting has to be adjourned and said business which would have been brought before the original meeting shall be brought before the adjourned meeting. Thus, in the present case, it has to be held that no business was transacted on 09.02.2023 including the business of placing the resignations of Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 before the meeting of the Panchayat. 17 of 25

12. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the requirement of Section 29(2) of the said Act is only placing the resignation letters before the meeting of the Panchayat. According to learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the meeting was scheduled on 09.02.2023 inter alia to specifically place resignation letters of the said members, i.e., Respondent Nos.[3] to 11 before the meeting of the Panchayat and therefore, whether the meeting was adjourned is totally irrelevant. However, perusal of the Minutes of the meeting dated 09.02.2023 clearly shows that same was merely adjorned, as there was no quorum and no business was transacted. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that resignation letters of Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 were placed before the said meeting held on 09.02.2023. In fact, it is significant to note that the present Petitioner was present in the meeting dated 09.02.2023 and she has not raised any such contention in said meeting.

13. Dr. Warunjikar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 to 15 has relied upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Manjulabai Govind Dhumal V. Collector, Osmanabad & Ors., reported in 2015(3) 18 of 25 Mh.L.J. 565 and more particularly on paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 which read as under:- “19. The intent and object of the legislature is quite clear. In order to rule out any mischief or force, duress or coercion in relation to the resignation of a member or a Sarpanch, the said resignation is place before the Panchayat where the author of the resignation has the liberty to dispute the resignation. It cannot be ruled out that such a member who has tendered his resignation, could withdraw the same before its acceptance by the Panchayat. If he raises a dispute as regards it genuineness, the same is then to be decided by the Collector.

20. In the light of the above, I have no hesitation in concluding that a resignation tendered by a member of the Grampanchayat or Sarpanch/Up-Sarpanch, shall not stand automatically accepted upon it being tendered. The said resignation will have to be placed before the Village Panchayat in a meeting and there cannot be a presumption of its acceptance. As such, the contention of the petitioner in this case that the resignations of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 would preclude them from participating in the special meeting convened for considering ‘no confidence’ motion, merely on the ground that the resignations have been tendered and therefore automatically accepted, is grossly misconceived.

21. The petitioner sat over the resignations submitted by respondent Nos. 3 to 7 and never placed them before the Panchayat. Consequentially, the said resignations were kept in dormant state. Had they been placed before the Panchayat, the consequences as regards their acceptance or any dispute raised by either of the member, would have 19 of 25 followed. In view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Pushpa w/o Pundlik Salame (supra) and Ravindra s/o Bhaskar Lumpataki (supra) and Shrikant Mallappa Ulegadi (supra), the resignations of respondent Nos. 3 to 7 were never accepted by the Grampanchayat and as such, their membership did not cease automatically.” The above observation and particularly, paragraph 20 of the said decision is squarely applicable to the present case.

14. It is further significant to note Minutes of the adjourned meeting dated 17.02.2023. The relevant portions of the said Minutes of the meeting are set out herein below for ready reference:- ßrgdwc ekfld lHkk fn-17@2@2023 vkt fn- 17@2@2023 okj ‘kqdzokj nqikjh 2-00 oktrk xzk-ia- mnxko dMhy fn-9@2@2023 jksthps rgdwc lHkk cksyfo.ksr vkyh gksrh- R;kosGh rgdwc lHksyk [kkyhyizek.ks xkz-ia- lnL; gtj gksrs- 1½ Jherh dfyequ ckGklks unkQ 2½ Jh- lkSjHk jktxksaMk ikVhy 3½ Jh- es?kjkt Jhdkar ojsdj 4½ Jh- txUukFk vk..kkIik iqtkjh 5½ lkS- tksRLuk lqHkk”k xnxMs 6½ lkS- iqtk lqfuy tk/ko 7½ lkS- Hkkjrh lqjs’k exnqe 8½ lkS- lqfurk vfnukFk pkSxqys 9½ Jh- v:.k vfuy dksGh 10½ Jh- fnyhi e/kqdj dkacGs 11½ Jh- lyhe egen isa<kjh 12½ Jh- jes’k dqcsj exnwe 20 of 25 13½ lkS- lqo.kkZ Jhdkar lqrkj 14½ lkS- lkfo=h jktdqekj exnqe 15½ lkS- nhfidk caMs’k dksGh 16½ Jh- fgnk;rqYyk vgen unkQ ofjyizzek.ks 1 rs 16 xzk- ia- lnL; gtj >kys- uarj fUk;ekizek.ks lHksps dksje iq.kZ gksr vlysys ek- ljiap Jherh dfyequ ckGklks unkQ;kauh;k lHksps v/;{kLFkku Lohdkjys uarj lHksP;k dkedktkl lq:okr >kyh-Þ ßfoa"k; ua- 9 % xzkeiapk;r lnL;kaps jkthukE;kps voyksdu dj.ks- Bjko dz 110%& ekSts mnxkao;k xzkeiapk;r dMhy rgdwc ekfld lHkk fn 17@02@2023 P;k lHkse/;s lHksps dkedkt pkyw vlrkauk fo"k; ua- 9 gk xzkeiapk;r lnL;kaps jkthukE;kps voyksdu dj.ks;k fo"k;kps okpu dsys vlrk lHksyk miLFkhr vlysys 9 xzk-ia- lnL; gs lHkse/kwu mBwu xsys 1½ Jh- lkSjHk jktxksaMk ikVhy 2½ Jh- txUukFk vk..kkIik iqtkjh 3½ lkS- Hkkjrh lqjs'k exnqe 4½ lkS- iqtk lqfuy tk/ko 5½ lkS- lqfurk vkfnukFk pkSxqys 6½ lkS- tksRLuk lqHkk"k xnxMs 7½ Jhes?kjkt Jhdkar ojsdj 8½ Jh- jes'k dqcsj exnqe 9½ Jh- fgnk;rrqYyk vgen unkQ vls,dw.k 9 xzka-ia- lnL;;kauh lHkkR;kx dsyk- lnjps xzk- ia- lnL; gs lHkse/kqu lk;adkGh 4-30 ok fu?kqu xsys- uarj ckdh moZfjr xzk- ia- lnL; 5 gs 1½ Jh lyhe egen isa<kjh 2½ lkS- lqo.kkZ Jhdkar lqrkj 3½ lkS- lkfo=h jktdqekj exnqe 4½ Jhv:.k vfuy dksGh 5½ Jh- fnyhi e/kqdj dkacGs;kauh lHksrwu 5-10 ok- lHksrqu fu?kqu xsys- lHkk pkyq vlrkuk R;kauh rksaMh er ekaMys dh] lnjps jkth ukE;kps voyksdu dj.ksr;sÅ u;s vls lkafxrys vkf.k R;kauh lHkkR;kx dsyk- R;kuarj Jhlyhe egen isa<kjh;kauh lkafxrys dh eh ys[kh Eg.k.ks ns.kkj vkgs vls lkaxqu lHkkx`gkrqu fu?kqu xsys- R;kuarj lHkkx`gke/;s mifLFkrhr vl.kkjs ek- v/;{k@ljiap o lnL; lkS- nhfidk caMs'k dksGh gs mifLFkr gksrs- R;kosGh v/;{kkauh vkns'k fnyk dh izkIr loZ jkthukE;kaps voyksdu dj.;kr;kos- rnuarj v/;{kkaP;k vkns'kkuqlkj xzk-iadMs izkIr >kysY;k miljiap o lnL;kaps jkthukes [kkyhy ukokuqlkj voyksdu dj.;kr vkys rs iq<hyizek.ks % v-dz- ukao in

1 Jh lkSjHk jktxksaMk ikVhy miljiap 2 Jh- fgnk;rqYyk vgen unkQ lnL; 3 lkS- iqtk lqfuy tk/ko lnL; 4 Jh- es?kjkt Jhdkar ojsdj lnL; 5 Jh- jes’k dqcsj exnqe lnL; 21 of 25

6 Jh- txUukFk vk..kkik iqtkjh lnL; 7 lkS- Hkkjrh lqjs’k exnqe lnL; 8 lkS- lqfurk vkfnukFk pkSxqys lnL; 9 LkkS- tksRLuk lqHkk”k xnxMs lnL; ojhy 9 lnL;kaps jkthukes lk{khnkjklg o fofgr ueqU;kr [kjs vlY;kus rs voyksdu dj.;kr vkys- uarj Jh- lyhe egen isa<kjh oxSjs 5;kauh lk;adkGh 6- 15 fe- uh ys[kh vtZ lknj dsyk- R;kuarj v/;{kkauh vkns’k fnyk dh lnjph rgdwc lHkk vlY;kus lnjpk vtZ izksflMhax e/;s ?ksrk;sr ukghlnj ofjyizek.ks 9 lnL;kaps voyksdu >kysys jkthukes ofj”B dk;kZy;kdMs;ksX; R;k dkxni=klg ofj”B dk;kZy;kdMs iq<hy dk;ZokghlkBh ikBfo.;kr;koslHkkx`gkr mifLFkr vl.kkjs v/;{kk ljiap o lnL; lkS- nhfidk caMs’k dksGh;kauh lkafxrys lnj fo”k;klkBh lqpd Eg.kwu v/;{kk@ljiap Jherh dyhequ CkkGklks unkQ o vuqeksnd lkS- nhfidk caMs’k dksGh;kaps uko ?ks.;kl lkafxrys- R;kizek.ks Bjkokl lqpd & v/;{k Jherh dyhequ ckGklks unkQ vuqeksnd & lnL; lkS- nhfidk caMs’k dksGh Bjko eatwj-Þ Thus, it is clear that in fact, resignation letters were placed before the meeting of the Panchayat only on 17.02.2023. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the said resignation letters were placed before the meeting which was held on 09.02.2023. The Minutes of both the meetings i. e. of 09.02.2023 and of 17.02.2023 clarify the said position. It is significant to note that the Petitioner has attended both the said meetings.

15. It is undisputed that Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 filed 22 of 25 their respective Dispute Applications under Section 29 of the said Act before the Collector on 24.02.2023 i. e. within a period of seven days, as contemplated under Sub Section 3 of Section 29 of the said Act. It is also undisputed that the said dispute was decided by the Collector on 22.08.2023. Even the said decision is challenged before the Commissioner within the time limit prescribed and the said respective Appeals are pending before the Commissioner. Thus, it is clear that resignation letters tendered by Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 on 26.01.2023 have not come into effect on 17.02.2023 when notice was, inter alia, given by Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 of ‘No-Confidence’ and on 24.03.2023, inter alia, when the Respondent Nos.[3] to 11 have voted in favour of the said ‘Motion of No Confidence’ and the same was successfully carried.

16. Reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. V. Gopal Chandra Misra & Ors., reported in (1978) 2 SCC 301 is totally misconceived. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on Paragraph 50 of the said decision, which reads as under:- “It will bear repetition that the general principle is that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a 'prospective' resignation can be withdrawn at any 23 of 25 time before it becomes effective, and it becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office-tenure of the resignor. This general rule is equally applicable to Government servants and constitutional functionaries. In the case of a Government servant/or functionary who cannot, under the conditions of his service/or office, by his own unilateral act of tendering resignation, give up his service/or office, normally, the tender of resignation becomes effective and his service/ or office-tenure terminated, when it is accepted by the competent authority. In the case of a Judge of a High Court, who is a constitutional functionary and under Proviso (a) to Article 217(1) has a unilateral right or privilege to resign his office, his resignation becomes effective and tenure terminated on the date from which he, of his own volition, chooses to quit office. If in terms of the writing under his hand addressed to the President, he resigns in praesanti, the resignation terminates his office-tenure forthwith, and cannot therefore, be withdrawn or revoked thereafter. But, if he by such writing, chooses to resign from a future date, the act resigning office is not complete because it does not terminate his tenure before such date and the Judge can at any time before the arrival of that prospective date on which it was intended to be effective, withdraw it, because the Constitution does not bar such withdrawal.” Undoubtedly, the present case is governed by Section 29 of the 24 of 25 said Act, which is already set out herein above. Sub-Section 6 of Section 29 of the said Act specifies when the resignation shall take effect. Therefore, the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court will not apply to the present case.

17. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has also relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shrikant Mallappa Ulegadi (supra). In the said decision also it has been held that resignation letters come into effect only after the same are placed before the meeting of the Panchayat and after expiry of seven days from the date on which Panchayat. Thus, the said decision will be of no help to the Petitioner.

18. Accordingly, no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. (MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)