M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is by the Chairman of the Village Panchayat of Maranbad, Hangal Tq. , Dharwad Dist. He was aggrieved by an order of the 2nd respondent Asst. Commr. , Savanur, dt. 4 9-1981 accepting the purported resignation tendered by him to the Chairmanship of Panchayat of the aforementioned Village Panchayat. He, therefore, preferred a revision petition to the Divnl. Commr-the 1st respondent, under S. 207 of the Karnataka Village panchayats and Local Boards Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The revision petition came to be dismissed sustaining the order of the Asst. Commr. Therefore, the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief, inter alia contending that the orders of the Asst. Commr. as well as the Divisional commr. suffer from errors apparent on the face of the record and also that the resignation was sent to the Asst. Commr. by his opponents in the Panchayat making use of blank papers which he had signed in order to facilitate the routine administration of the Panchayat by the Secretary of the Panchayat in his absence. ( 2 ) CERTAIN facts which are not disputed are as follows: the purported resignation letter is dt. 3-8-1981. The Border of the Asst. Commr,- 2nd respondent accepting the resignation and directing election to that office and with a further direction that the Vice- chairman should be incharge of the office of the Chairman till election process is completed is dt, 4 9-1981. The order of the Asst. Commr, is evidently communicated to the petitioner. The communication is effected within about 10 days and thereafter, the petitioner had approached the Divnl. Commr. with the revision petition. The original records of the case are not produced by the respondents, particularly, the letter of resignation Itself. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that the records are lost in transmission between the office of the Asst. Commr. and the office of the Divnl. Commr. , when the records were called for in connection with the revision petition filed before the divnl, Commr. by the petitioner. The contents of the letter of resignation are not disputed. The facts stated in that letter are that the petitioner due to domestic problems was not able to continue as chairman and therefore, was tendering his resignation. Commr. , when the records were called for in connection with the revision petition filed before the divnl, Commr. by the petitioner. The contents of the letter of resignation are not disputed. The facts stated in that letter are that the petitioner due to domestic problems was not able to continue as chairman and therefore, was tendering his resignation. This is obvious from the preamble to the order of the Asst. Commr. dt, 4-9-1981 which is at Annexure-A to the petition. The contents of the resignation letter were typed out in Kannada also is obvious from the order of the Divisional commr. The signature of the petitioner itself is not in dispute, because he has admitted having signed on blank papers which have been used though the Assistant commr. in his order has made it clear that he compared the signature and was satisfied with the signature of the petitioner. ( 3 ) RULE in this case was issued on 6/1/1982 and interim stay also was granted and records were called for. Pursuant to the order made at Annexure-B by the divnl. Commr. election to the vacant office of the Chairman was also ordered by the Chief Executive Officer who is 3rd respondent herein. The Vice-Chairman of the Panchayat is the 4th respondent as he has been asked to be incharge till the election process is over. On account of the interim stay granted on 6 1-1982 no election as such has taken place. However, on an application made by the Vice Chair-man-4th respondent, a learned single judge of this Court, on 7-1-1983 vacated the interim stay granted solely on the ground that the letter of resignation bore the signature of the petitioner and therefore, prima facie the findings of the authorities below should be accepted before deciding whether the petitioner really tendered the resignation or not. In the result, elections are scheduled to be held to the office of the Chairman of the aforementioned village Panchayat on 19 2 1983. In that circumstance, the petitioner has pressed for a decision in the main petition itself so that the controversy would be at an end. ( 4 ) AT the time of arguing the case of the petitioner learned counsel W. K. Joshi has stressed on the language of S. 31 (2) of the Act. S. 31 of the Act, which consists of three sub-sections is as follows:31. ( 4 ) AT the time of arguing the case of the petitioner learned counsel W. K. Joshi has stressed on the language of S. 31 (2) of the Act. S. 31 of the Act, which consists of three sub-sections is as follows:31. Resignation of Chairman or Vice- chairman :- (1) The Vice-Chairman may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Chairman and in the absence of the Chairman to the Asst commr. (2) The Chairman may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Asst. Commr. (3) Resignations under sub-sec. (1) or (2) shall take effect from the date of their acceptance"sub-sec. (2) of S. 31 of the Act refers to the option conferred on Chairman to resign his office in the manner provided therein. The language. used is that he may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Asst. Commr. ( 5 ) IT is Mr. Joshi's contention that 'under his hand' must necessarily be understood to mean that the entire. resignation letter should be in the handwriting of the person resigning the office. When admittedly the letter of resignation was typed due credence ought to have been given both by the Divnl. Commr. and the Asst. Commr. to the plea that blank paper signed by the petitioner had been misused by his opponents to cause vacancy in the office of the Chairmanship, though he had no intention of resigning. Failure to direct themselves to that aspect of the question has resulted in the Divnl. Commr. misdirecting himself, particularly in the absence of original records, while the Asst. Commr. who accepted the resignation totally overlooked the language of sub- sec. (2) of S. 31 of the Act. ( 6 ) THERE appears to be considerable force in the contention advanced by the petitioner though Mr. Ujjannavar, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent (abour whose locus in this case is questionable), has contended that 'under his hand' should be restrictively read to mean only 'under' the signature and no more as otherwise it would mean that a person who does not know how to read and write but nevertheless elected Chairman of the village Panchayat can never tender his resignation. No doubt, this argument advanced for the 4th respondent appears to be attractive but that does not mean that the language used In sub sec. No doubt, this argument advanced for the 4th respondent appears to be attractive but that does not mean that the language used In sub sec. (2) of s. 31 of the Act should be construed for the benefit of illeterate Chairman and not for the benefit of those who know how to read and write. If there is lacuna in the law it is for the Legislature to correct it. It is for the Court to interpret on golden Rule of construction as to what is the expression used in the Statute when normally used. The language of sub-sec. (2) of S. 31 of the Act is not different from the language used In Art. 217 of the Constitution. Sub Cl. (1) of Art. 217 of the Constitution deals with the tenure of a High Court judge and that provision came up for consideration in the context of resignation of a Judge in the case of Union of India v. Gopalchandra Misra (1 ). Proviso (a) to Art. 217 of the Constitution is as follows :"a Judge may by writing under his hand addressed to the President resign his office". This is almost, in pari materia with the language used in sub-sec. (2) of S. 31 ef the Act. Sarkaria, J, speaking for the majority in the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court analysed the effect of cl. (1) of Art. 217 of the Constitution read with its proviso and has observed as follows :"the three clauses of the proviso to art. 217 (1) indicate that this tenure can be terminated before the Judge attains the age ot 62 years, in four contingencies, namely, where he- (i) resigns his office in the manner laid down in its Cl. (a); (ii) is removed from his office in the manner provided in Art. 124 (4) (vide its cl. (b); (iii) is appointed a Judge of the Suppreme Court (vide its Cl. (c) ) ; (iv) Is transferred to any other High court in India. . . . . . . . , in this case we have to focus attention on Cl. (a) of the proviso. In order to terminate his tenure under this clause, the Judge must do three volitional things: Firstly, he should execute a "writing under his hand". Secondly, the writing should be "addressed to the president". Thirdly, by that writing be should "resign his office". . . , in this case we have to focus attention on Cl. (a) of the proviso. In order to terminate his tenure under this clause, the Judge must do three volitional things: Firstly, he should execute a "writing under his hand". Secondly, the writing should be "addressed to the president". Thirdly, by that writing be should "resign his office". If any of these things is not done or the performance of any of them is not complete, cl. (a) will not operate to cut short or terminate the tenure of his office". From the above it is clear that the contents of a resignation letter also, when the expression "under his hand" is used must be in the handwriting of the person who is tendering his resignation. ( 7 ) MR. Joshi has also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of byrappa v. State of Karnataka (2 ). In the said case S. 34 of the Karnataka Land revenue Act came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. That section deais with summary procedure. An officer holding a summary procedure is required to record the proceedings in his own handwriting. That expression was strictly construed with its normal ordinary meaning and the Division bench held that it must be in the hand writing of the officer who is holding the summary enquiry. ( 8 ) I do not think that decision should be considered as a direct ruling supporting the case of the petitioner, because the language of S. 34 of the Land Revenue act and the language of sub-sec. (2) of S. 31 of the Act are widely different. In s. 34 of the Land Revenue Act no doubt whatsoever is left while under sub sec. (2) of S. 31 of the Act a phrase peculiar to english Law has been used. ( 9 ) I should commend the assistance given by learned Government Pleader Sri m. H. Motigi in bringing to my notice the meaning of that expression explained la stroud's Judicial Dictionary III Edn. , vol. 2, at page 1332 under the item "his hand". The following is the meaning given therein :"his hand: A letter written by a bankrupt's Trustees Solicitor in his own name diselaiming a lease, held, not a due disclaimer by the Trustee, under s. 23 of the Bankruptcy Act 1869 (32 A 33 Vict. , vol. 2, at page 1332 under the item "his hand". The following is the meaning given therein :"his hand: A letter written by a bankrupt's Trustees Solicitor in his own name diselaiming a lease, held, not a due disclaimer by the Trustee, under s. 23 of the Bankruptcy Act 1869 (32 A 33 Vict. e. 71) because It was not a "writing under his (I. e. , the Trustee's) hand" (Wilson v. Wallani, 5 Ex. D. 155) see Himself. See now Bankruptcy Act 1914 (4 and Geo. 5. e 59), S. 54 (1)". ( 10 ) FROM the above ruling of the English Courts in the various decisions referred to therein, it is clear "his hand" really means writing in his hand. In the same book in Vol. IV at page 3348 and 3349 writing' as judicially considered has been given. "writing in his hand" is referred to the meaning given to "his hand". ( 11 ) IN the light of the discussion above and for the reasons I have already given when the Supreme Court of our country has understood "under his hand" to mean writing in the handwriting of the person resigning, a typed letter of resignation purported to have been signed by the petitioner or one can say admitted to have been signed by the petitioner, but such signature having been made use of fraudulently by his opponents, is a matter which should have been more thoroughly investigated by the Divnl. Commr. , particularly in the absence of original records. Therefore, there is total failure of proper application of mind and also failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in him as Revisional authority. ( 12 ) IN the result, the order of the Divnl. Commr. and also the order of the Asst. Commr. which are impugned in this writ petition are liable to be quashed and they are so quashed- Rule is made absolute. The election scheduled for tomorrow i. e. , 19-2 1983 is, therefore, automatically cancelled. ( 13 ) LEARNED Government Pleader, it is hoped, will telephone the concerned, that election should not take place unless this view I have taken is over-ruled on appeal by a Division Bench of this Court. ( 14 ) SRI M. H. Motigi, learned Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance in two weeks from todoy. --- *** --- .