R.V. Ghuge JUDGMENT
R.V. Ghuge, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. By this petition, the Petitioner prays that the impugned order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the District Collector, Beed be quashed and set aside. The Petitioner has been removed as a member of the Gram Panchayat as well as Sarpanch of Village Gram Panchayat, Babhalkhunta under Section 13-A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, for having failed to resign as per Rule 41-A of the Maharashtra Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1959.
3. The Petitioner was elected as a member of the Babhalkhunta Gram Panchayat on 09.10.2017 after the polling took place on 07.10.2017. She also contested the elections to the position of a Sarpanch since the said position was to be directly filled in by elections held on 07.10.2017 under Section 30(1A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. She was elected as a Sarpanch on 09.10.2017.
4. Under Rule 41-A of the Maharashtra Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1959, a period of seven days is prescribed, from the date of the official publication of the notice declaring the results of the elections, for a candidate to resign from one post if he has been elected to more than one post in the said elections. A notification was published by the District Collector on 11.10.2017 notifying the results of the elections. By excluding the said date, the Petitioner was expected to resign from all but one position within seven days, which would be on or before 18.10.2017.
5. It is the case of the Petitioner that she has written down her resignation from the position of member of the Gram Panchayat on 13.10.2017, signed it and posted it by RPAD to the District Collector, Beed, on the same day, from her village. The contention is that after the resignation was dispatched by RPAD, it was beyond the control of the Petitioner as to when the said resignation would reach the District Collector. The case of the Respondent/State is that as the District Collector received the resignation letter on 01.11.2017, the Petitioner was held to have incurred a removal as a member and as the Sarpanch, vide the impugned order dated 21.11.2017. It is contended that there was no hearing given to the Petitioner before unseating her and declaring both the positions vacant.
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon Section 13-A and Rule 41-A to contend that the said section provides that a person, who is elected to more than one seat in the village panchayat, shall resign from all the seats but one, by writing a resignation duly signed by the candidate and addressed to the State Election Commission or any officer authorized by it in this behalf. If this is not so done, all the seats occupied by the said candidate would be declared as vacant. He, therefore, contends that the language of the said provision requires a candidate to write the resignation letter, sign it and address it to the State Election Commission or any authorized officer. The language in the said section and the Rule does not indicate that a resignation letter should be delivered within seven days to the competent authority.
7. Reliance is placed upon Rule 41-A of the Election Rules to support the contention that even the said rule which prescribes the time period of seven days, does not specifically indicate that the resignation letter should be delivered within seven days to the District Collector. It is, therefore, contended that a person, who is democratically elected by the mandate of the masses, cannot be unseated merely because the District Collector desires to interpret a particular provision in a different manner. When the resignation letter is not mandated to be delivered within seven days to the District Collector, the State cannot take a stand that as the letter dispatched by RPAD has not reached the District Collector within time........