1. I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned A.G.P. on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 at length.

2. These are 5 petitioners who have been elected as a members of the Gram Panchayat of village Jalki Bazar, Tq.Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. There are in all 7 members. The post of Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch has been reserved for the women category. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat, respectively.

3. The petitioners contend that there are certain allegations against the Sarpanch. They have never contended that being a woman Sarpanch, 3/4th majority is required for passing a No Confidence Motion against her and that the petitioners don't have such majority. The petitioners hasten to clarify that they never had any intention to move No Confidence Motion against the Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch.

4. On 02/07/2014, all the petitioners tendered their resignation from their post and submitted the same to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The same was placed in a meeting convened on 24/07/2014 and the resignations of the petitioners were discussed, verified and were accepted by passing a resolution. The petitioners reiterate that their resignations were voluntary, by their own free will and desire. The same have not been tendered either under force, duress or coercion.

5. The Tahsildar submitted the said resolution and the resignations to the District Collector, Aurangabad, who is the appropriate authority, on 13/08/2014. In turn, the Collector prepared his report u/s 145(1A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act and submitted the same to the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, Division Aurangabad.

6. On 21/10/2014, after receiving the proposal from the Collector's Office, the Divisional Commissioner has issued notices to the parties. The petitioners have submitted their reply and accorded reasons behind their resignations and have expressed a grievance about the lady Sarpanch. By an order dated 29/10/2014, the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad directed holding of bye elections for filling in the vacancies caused due to the resignations of the petitioners. The said decision has been challenged in this petition.

7. Contention of the petitioners is that since there are allegations against the Sarpanch, respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner was under an obligation to exercise his powers u/s 145(1A) and thereby dissolve the entire Gram Panchayat. Further contention is that when 5 members have resigned, the Gram Panchayat would not have been in a position to perform its functions in a manner as is expected.

8. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Aashabai w/o Vilas Wagh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2008(6) ALL MR 825, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Omprakash Kawaduji Desai and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2009(5) Mh.L.J. 322, and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sou.Jamuna Mahadeo Dalvi and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, 2012(4) ALL MR 970.

9. Learned Addl. G.P., appearing on behalf of the said respondents, submits that there is no mandate of law that the discretion vested in the Divisional Commissioner, ought to be exercised only by passing an order of dissolution. It is not that the Divisional Commissioner can not apply his mind and come to a decision in his wisdom. He submits that the Divisional Commissioner has considered the report of the Collector and has taken into account the fact that the Collector has not submitted a report that the Gram Panchayat should be dissolved as is misconstrued by the petitioners.

10. He, therefore, submits that the Divisional Commissioner, upon application of mind and after hearing the concerned parties including the petitioners, who had in fact resigned and were no longer in their position as a member of the Gram Panchayat, has concluded that bye elections to the