The petitioners, filed a writ petition against the Divisional Commissioner's order allowing an appeal by Respondent No. 1, Sarpanch, regarding the genuineness of her resignation -- The resignation was tendered on 18 March 2024, witnessed by the petitioners, but the Sarpanch later disputed it citing procedural irregularities in acknowledgment -- The District Collector initially rejected the dispute, but the Divisional Commissioner overturned this, finding non-compliance with the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 and the Bombay Village Panchayat (Delivery of Notice of Resignation) Rules, 1965 -- The High Court, after hearing arguments, dismissed the petition, upholding the Divisional Commissioner's decision as based on proper legal and factual analysis, and emphasizing that writ jurisdiction does not permit re-appraisal of evidence absent jurisdictional error
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging the Divisional Commissioner's order that set aside the District Collector's decision on a Sarpanch's resignation dispute -- The petitioners, Deputy Sarpanch and Member of village panchayat Mharal, contested the Divisional Commissioner's finding that the resignation procedure under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 and the Bombay Village Panchayat (Delivery of Notice of Resignation) Rules, 1965 was not followed -- The Court held that the Divisional Commissioner's decision was based on proper appraisal of evidence and compliance with statutory requirements, and no interference was warranted under writ jurisdiction -- The judgment emphasizes strict adherence to procedural rules for resignation of elected representatives in local bodies
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Divisional Commissioner's order that the resignation was not lawful due to procedural non-compliance, and no interference was warranted under writ jurisdiction
Citation: 2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 106
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 12689 of 2025
Date of Decision: 2026-01-22
Case Title: The Issue of whether the resignation of the Sarpanch was genuine and complied with the statutory procedure under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 and the Bombay Village Panchayat (Delivery of Notice of Resignation) Rules, 1965
Before Judge: N. J. Jamadar J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026:BHC-AS:3640
Advocate(s): Mr. Avinash Fatangare, Santosh Sawant, Ms. Archana Shelar, Mr. Sanjay Patil, Mr. B. B. Dahiphale, Ms. Prerna Agavekar, Mr. Sagar Bhoir
Appellant: Yogesh Ashok Deshmukh, Laxman Govind Kongere
Respondent: Nilima Nandu Mhatre, Divisional Commissioner Konkan Division, Additional Collector Thane, Block Development Officer Panchayat Samiti Kalyan, Amol Ulhas Murbade, Deepak Vaman Ahire, Monika Mukesh Gaikwad, Nanda Pandurang Mhatre, Vikas Gopal Pawar, Amruta Mahesh Deshmukh, Prakash Baban Chaudhary, Pragati Prakash Kongere, Anita Balkrishna Deshmukh, Ashwini Nilesh Deshmukh, Vedika Vivek Gambhirrao, Kishore Govind Wadekar, Pramod Purushottam Deshmukh
Nature of Litigation: Writ petition challenging appellate order under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 regarding resignation of Sarpanch
Remedy Sought: Petitioners seek to set aside the Divisional Commissioner's order and restore the District Collector's decision rejecting the resignation dispute
Filing Reason: Petitioners aggrieved by Divisional Commissioner's finding that resignation procedure was not followed, leading to setting aside of District Collector's order
Previous Decisions: District Collector rejected dispute application on 23 September 2024, Divisional Commissioner allowed appeal on 17 February 2025 setting aside District Collector's order
Issues: Whether the resignation of the Sarpanch was genuine and complied with statutory procedure under the MVP Act and Rules, 1965 Whether the Divisional Commissioner's decision was based on proper legal and factual grounds warranting interference under writ jurisdiction
Submissions/Arguments: Petitioners argued resignation was genuine with signatures verified, and procedural irregularities in acknowledgment did not invalidate it Respondent No. 1 argued resignation was not lawful due to non-compliance with prescribed procedure and acknowledgment discrepancies State and other respondents supported respective positions based on statutory interpretation
Ratio Decidendi: Resignation of elected representatives under the MVP Act must strictly adhere to prescribed procedural rules, including acknowledgment requirements under Rules, 1965 -- Appellate authority's findings on compliance are binding unless perverse or based on jurisdictional error -- Writ jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of law and does not permit re-appraisal of evidence
Judgment Excerpts: The Divisional Commissioner observed that, the procedure prescribed for tendering the resignation of the Sarpanch/Members of the village panchayat under the Act, 1959 and the Rules, 1965 was not scrupulously followed 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
Procedural History: Resignation tendered on 18 March 2024 -- Village panchayat meeting held on 28 March 2024 to verify genuineness -- Dispute application filed before Collector under Section 29(3) of MVP Act -- District Collector rejected dispute on 23 September 2024 -- Appeal preferred to Divisional Commissioner under Section 29(4) of MVP Act -- Divisional Commissioner allowed appeal on 17 February 2025 -- Writ petition filed in High Court on 2025 -- Reserved on 12 January 2026 -- Pronounced on 22 January 2026
