Facts: The petitioners, Deputy Sarpanch and a member of the village panchayat, challenged the Divisional Commissioner's order that overturned the Additional District Collector's decision regarding the genuineness of Respondent No. 1's (Sarpanch) resignation. The Sarpanch had initially tendered her resignation, which the petitioners witnessed. However, she later disputed the acknowledgment of the resignation letter, claiming procedural impropriety under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, and the Bombay Village Panchayat (Delivery of Notice of Resignation) Rules, 1965.
Procedural Posture: The case reached the High Court via a writ petition filed by the Deputy Sarpanch and a member of the village panchayat, challenging the Divisional Commissioner's order, which had allowed the Sarpanch's appeal against the Additional District Collector's decision.
Issue: (1) Does non-compliance with Rule 3(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Delivery of Notice of Resignation) Rules, 1965, regarding acknowledgment of resignation receipt, invalidate the resignation process? (2) Did the Sarpanch's actions in the village panchayat meeting amount to a withdrawal of her resignation?
Holding: (1) Yes, non-compliance with Rule 3(3) regarding proper acknowledgment vitiates the resignation process. (2) Yes, the Sarpanch's conduct in the meeting amounted to a withdrawal of her resignation.
Reasoning: The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the procedures outlined in Section 29 and 34 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, and Rule 3 of the 1965 Rules. It held that the use of the word "shall" in these provisions indicates the legislature's intent for strict compliance. The Court reasoned that proper acknowledgment, as per Form II, is not merely a formality but serves to prevent coercion, fraud, or undue influence in the resignation process. The Court also noted that the Sarpanch disputed the resignation and disowned it in the meeting, which, coupled with the procedural lapses, indicated a withdrawal of the resignation. The court upheld the Divisional Commissioner's order, stating that insisting on binding the Sarpanch to the resignation despite procedural infractions would not be conducive to a free and fair electoral democracy.