1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 01.04.2009 dismissing the petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The appellant has challenged order dated 10.11.2008, by which the Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati exercised the powers of the State Government under Section 145 (1A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and dissolved the village Panchayat, Pimpalgaon on the ground that seven out of thirteen members have resigned and their resignations have been accepted. The section, under which the Commissioner took action, reads as follows:-

“145 (1A): If more than half the total number of seats in a Panchayat have become vacant, the State Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, dissolve such Panchayat.”

The Divisional Commissioner invoked clause (1A) which enables the exercise of powers by the State Government if more than half the total number of seats in the Panchayat have become vacant. There is no dispute that such was case when the power was exercised by the Commissioner, in the present case.

3. Mr. Mirza, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have upheld the order of Commissioner, Amravati since the Commissioner has not given a finding that working of the village Panchayat has become impossible. According to the learned counsel, it is in such circumstances alone that the State Government can exercise powers and not merely because the number has fallen below half. It must be noted that there is no such condition imposed by the section and there is no warrant for reading something which is not there. It is true that section confers powers on the Government which may be exercised at its discretion and there is no doubt that exercise of this power must be regulated by the principles of reasonableness and fairness as in case of administrative powers vested in the State. We, however, find, from the facts of the present case, that it cannot be said that power was exercised arbitrarily or unfairly. Due notice was given to the members of the village Panchayat before passing the order of dissolution. The submissions were heard from the members of the Panchayat, seven of whom submitted that they have raised several complaints of corruption and irregularities in the meeting of the Panchayat but in vain and they are not prepared to play role of onlookers and they, therefore, resigned. The Commissioner has observed that the members were forced to take the steps in the interest of the village Panchayat and in the interest of public. In the circumstances, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that smooth working of the village Panchayat is hampered and the village Panchayat is liable to be dissolved.

4. The learned Single Judge has referred to the reason given by the Commissioner and has upheld the order. While dong so, it appears that certain xerox copies of the documents were submitted by members of the village Panchayat who appeared as intervenors, in order to justify their resignations. The documents pertain to irregularities and alleged misappropriation in the functioning of the village Panchayat. On this basis, Mr.Mirza, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have taken into account the material, which was not produced before the Commissioner, since the order of the Commissioner can only be justified for the reasons stated therein and not on the basis of reasons contained in affidavits filed subsequently. He relied upon judgment in Commissioner of Police, Bombay ..vs.. Gordhandas Bhanji; AIR (39)1952 Supreme Court 16 and Mohinder Singh Gill and anr..vs.The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and ors.; AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851. We find that no new justification was made out by the intervenors before the learned Single Judge. The justification was the same as given before