1. Leave to amend prayer clause B. Amendment be carried out forthwith.

2. I have heard the learned Advocates for the Petitioner, Respondent Nos.3 to 7 and the learned AGP on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent Nos.8 and 9, who are also members of the Gram Panchayat, have not caused an appearance though served with the court notices.

3. The Petitioner, who was elected as the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Dadegaon, Taluka Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar, is aggrieved by the order dated 24.10.2017 delivered by the Collector, Ahmednagar in Dispute Application No.40/2017 as well as by the order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik in Grampanchayat Appeal No.596/2017.

4. It is contended that after the Petitioner was elected as the lady Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Dadegaon, she is said to have tendered her resignation on 24.05.2017. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 presented the said resignation to the Panchayat Samiti on 24.05.2017. On 29.05.2017, the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Shevgaon has forwarded the said resignation for verification to the Village Development Officer/ Gramsevak, Dadegaon Village Panchayat. After the Petitioner received the notice of the meeting convened on 14.06.2017 with regard to her resignation, she moved a withdrawal application dated 14.06.2017 and tendered it to the Gramsevak at 10:30 AM. The Gramsevak participated in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat.

5. The stand taken by the Petitioner was that she was pressurized by some antisocial elements and threats were held out to her family members. She was made to sign on a document, which is termed as a resignation letter. She is not aware about the contents of the said letter, which is branded as a resignation.

6. In the said meeting dated 14.06.2017, the contentions of the Petitioner were recorded by the Chairperson which indicate that she specifically stated that she has not resigned, the resignation notice bears her signature which was acquired under pressure and coercion, she has not resigned from the said position of the Sarpanch and her resignation should not be accepted.

7. The proceeding book indicates the name of Respondent No.5, who proposed acceptance of the subject on the agenda without it being so recorded specifically and the Petitioner's name is stated to be the seconder of the said proposal. What is recorded in the proceeding book is, meaning that the resolution/subject is approved. The subject of the meeting undisputedly was only for scrutinizing the resignation notice of the Petitioner.

8. The Petitioner then approached the District Collector on 20.07.2017 for referring the resignation document for enquiry. By the impugned order dated 24.10.2017, the District Collector declined to consider the dispute under Section 29 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (for short "the said Act") since it was filed after 07 days from the date of the meeting. For identical reasons, the Additional Divisional Commissioner declined to consider the appeal under Section 34 of the said Act.

9. The Petitioner places reliance upon the judgments of the learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Rajesh Matadin Jaiswal and others vs. Village Panchayat, Wadi, 1987 (1) Bom.C.R. 528 and in the matter of Sou.Kumudini Ratilal Bhagat and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 1987 (1) Bom.C.R. 634 : 1987 Mh.L.J. 462.

10. The learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 to 7/ Gram Panchayat Members, contends that the impugned orders require no interference as the Petitioner has approached the District Collector belatedly and both the Authorities below have rightly refused to consider the dispute after 07 days. He further refers to Section 29 of the said Act and strenuously submits that once the dispute is raised after 07 days, the District Collector could not have entertained it. He has rightly declined to entertain the said dispute and as such, no interference is called for.

11. During the course of his veheme