R. K. ABICHANDANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-Panchayat challenges the order dated 10th January 1995, passed by the respondent No. 1-Taluka development Officer, by which in exercise of powers under Section 54 (3) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993, he held that the resignations which were tendered by the respondents, Nos. 2 to 7 as members of the Panchayat, were conditional resignations and were therefore, illegally accepted by the sarpanch on 5-12-1994. It. was therefore ordered by the Taluka Development officer that these six persons/continued to be the members of the petitioner- panchayat. The term of the petitioner-Panchayat commenced from 6th April 1992, for a period of five years. Shri Jayantibhai virchandbhai Patel was elected Sarpanch of this Panchayat. According to the petitioner, nine members of the panchayat tendered their resignations from membership of the Panchayat in their own handwriting and signatures, in person, to the Sarpanch on 5-12-1994. The Sarpanch as a competent authority, accepted the resignations under Section 54 (2) of the said Act on the same day and the letters showing acceptance of resignations were despatched to those nine members including the respondent nos. 2 to 7 by Registered post A. D. According to the petitioner, the acceptance of resignations of the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 was legal and valid and they stood relieved from their office with effect from 5th December 1994. All the nine members who had submitted resignations, thereafter made an application to the Taluka Development officer on 12-12-1994 and according to the petitioner, without any notice to the petitioner-Panchayat o. r Sarpanch, the respondent No. 1-Taluka Development officer confirmed the order of the sarpanch as regards resignations of three members, but set aside the same in respect of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 holding that- their resignations were conditional and declaring that they continued to remain members of the Panchayat. ( 2 ) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1- taluka Development Officer had passed the order without jurisdiction as the dispute relating to resignations was not referred to him by the Sarpanch. It was further contended that in the application dated 12th December 1994, which was made by the respondent Nos. ( 2 ) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1- taluka Development Officer had passed the order without jurisdiction as the dispute relating to resignations was not referred to him by the Sarpanch. It was further contended that in the application dated 12th December 1994, which was made by the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and three others to the respondent No. 1- taluka Development Officer relating to the resignations given, it was not even alleged that these resignations were not freely given or that they were not genuine. It was also argued that in this application there was no contention raised as is now sought to be raised by these respondents to the effect that they had tendered the resignations. on an understanding that all members and sarpanch would resign and that there would be fresh election. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 7, it was contended that these resignations were conditional as held by the Taluka Development Officer and therefore, the Taluka Development officer rightly set aside the order of the sarpanch accepting these resignations on 5-12-1994. It was also contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the said Act against the order of the respondent No. 1 and therefore, the petition should not be entertained. It was also argued that the Sarpanch was also not authorised to file the present petition. It was then argued that the respondents nos. 2 to 7 had given their resignations because they felt annoyed with the sarpanch on his manner of functioning and the idea behind the resignation was that there would be a fresh election of the panchayat. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondent No. 1 - taluka Development Officer, Mr, J, M. Barot, learned Advocate appearing for mr. Munsha contended that the Taluka development Officer had acted in lawful exercise of his powers under Section 54 (3) of the said Act and there was no jurisdictional error in the impugned order which can merit any interference by "this court. He argued that the application dated 12-12-1994 forwarded to the taluka Development Officer by the district Development Officer and on 10- 1-1995 the dispute was heard by him. He argued that the application dated 12-12-1994 forwarded to the taluka Development Officer by the district Development Officer and on 10- 1-1995 the dispute was heard by him. It was argued that in spite of intimation to the Gram Panchayat on 6th January 1995 the Sarpanch did not remain present and the impugned order was made after giving proper hearing to those who had responded to the notices. In support of the power of the Taluka Development officer to make the impugned order, the learned Counsel relied upon the notification dated 26th July 1994, issued by the Government authorising the taluka Development Officer to decide a dispute regarding the resignation, inter alia of members of the Panchayat under section 54 (3) of the said Act. ( 5 ) ABOUT the authority of the respondent No. 1-Taluka Development officer to decide the disputes regarding the resignation of the members of the panchayat, there does not seem to be any doubt in view of the Notification dated 26th July 1994, by which Taluka development Officer is empowered to decide the disputes regarding the resignation of the members of a panchayat. Under Section 54 (3), any member other than Sarpanch or Upa- sarpanch of a Panchayat may resign from his office by tendering his resignation to the Sarpanch and the resignation takes effect on the date on which it is accepted by the Sarpanch. Any dispute regarding resignation is required to be referred to for decision to an Officer who may be appointed by the State Government under sub-section 3 of Section 54 and the decision of such Officer is made final under that provision. A dispute regarding resignation cannot be entertained after the expiry of a period of 30 days from the date on which the resignation takes effect. There is nothing in sub-section (3) of section 54 which debars a dispute being raised by anyone other than the Sarpanch. The Sarpanch surely can refer the dispute to the authorised officer but the dispute as regards resignation may also be raised before the authorised officer by any other legally interested person. There is absolutely no reason to confine the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 54 only to the disputes regarding resignation which are referred by the Sarpanch. The Sarpanch surely can refer the dispute to the authorised officer but the dispute as regards resignation may also be raised before the authorised officer by any other legally interested person. There is absolutely no reason to confine the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 54 only to the disputes regarding resignation which are referred by the Sarpanch. Therefore, the respondent No. 1-Taluka development Officer was empowered to entertain the dispute regarding the resignation of the nine members of the panchayat including the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 even on their application dated 12- 12-1994 which was addressed to the district Development Officer who forwarded the same to the Taluka development Officer for his decision under Section 54 (3) of the said Act. ( 6 ) THE decision of the Taluka development Officer which is rendered under Section 54 (3) of the said Act is required to be treated as final in. context of the provisions of the said Act. In other words, the finality which is attached to a decision given under Section 54 (3) is a clear embargo on the appellate or revisional authority created under the said act to go into the validity of the order which may be made by an Officer under section 54 (3) of the said Act. Therefore, the question of relegating the petitioner to an alternative remedy under the said Act does not arise in relation to the impugned order which is made under Section 54 (3) of the said Act. ( 7 ) AS regards the contention that the sarpanch was not authorised to entertain the petition, it would suffice to refer to the resolution of the Panchayat which is produced with the affidavit-in-rejonder showing that on 8th January 1995, the sarpanch was authorised to file legal proceedings in connection with the question arising as regards the acceptance of the resignations of these members. ( 8 ) IT is tried to be contended on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 that the idea behind the resignations tendered by nine members including respondent Nos. 2 to 7 was that there should be a fresh election of the Panchayat. In this context, it is significant to note that in the application dated 12th December 1994, at Annexure "i" to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 that the idea behind the resignations tendered by nine members including respondent Nos. 2 to 7 was that there should be a fresh election of the Panchayat. In this context, it is significant to note that in the application dated 12th December 1994, at Annexure "i" to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 7, it was not at all mentioned that the applicants had tendered their resignations on any understanding that all the members and the Sarpanch had agreed to resign. Even from the order of the Taluka development Officer it is clear that no such contention was raised. Therefore, the story now put up in the affidavit-in- reply that the Sarpanch had agreed to resign so that the Body can be dissolved and new election can be held and that in spite of promise being given the sarpanch did not tender his resignation is clearly in after-thought. If the Sarpanch had given such promise or that there was an understanding that all the members would resign and that is why the respondents Nos. 2 to 7 and three others had tendered their resignations, then surely that fact would have been mentioned in the application dated 12-12- 1994, made by these nine members raising the dispute regarding their resignations. ( 9 ) THE impugned order of the Taluka development Officer setting aside the order of the Sarpanch accepting resignations of the respondents Nos. 2 to 7 is based on the ground that these resignations were conditional which could not have been accepted by the sarpanch. On perusal of the resignations of the respondents Nos. 2 to 7, it transpires that respondent No. 2- hasmukhbhai Patel, the respondent No. 4 -Ajitkumar Chauhan, the respondent No. 5 Parvatiben, the respondent No. 7- kantilal, have in their resignation letters addressed to the Sarpanch clearly mentioned that they were submitting their resignations voluntarily and on their own accord. In the resignation letter of hasmukhbhai, it was stated that electric supply to the village had been disrupted for three to four months and the complaints were not being heard. It was also stated that because of the attitude of the Sarpanch, he was constrained to voluntarily resign. In the resignation letter of hasmukhbhai, it was stated that electric supply to the village had been disrupted for three to four months and the complaints were not being heard. It was also stated that because of the attitude of the Sarpanch, he was constrained to voluntarily resign. The respondent No. 4 in his resignation had stated that since the problems raised in the application made by him were not being solved, he was voluntarily resigning taking moral responsibility in the matter. It was clearly stated that the resignation was not being given under any pressure and that it was a free decision of this member. The respondents Nos. 5 and 7 also gave same grounds for their resignations, stating it was a voluntary resignation given without any pressure from any quarters. The respondent No. 6 stated in his resignation letter that he was unable to continue as a member due to unavoidable circumstances. A request was. made that his resignation should be accepted. In the resignation letter of respondent No. 3 it was only stated that as facilities were not given in Ward No. XIII, he was resigning from the membership of the Panchayat. It will be noticed from the contents of the resignation letters of the respondents Nos. 2 to 7 that their resignations were given on the grounds mentioned in these letters. The reasons which have promoted the members to resign, cannot be described as conditions on which the resignations depended. In none of these resignations it is stated that the resignation is dependent on any condition. A resignation would be conditional if it is dependent upon or. made subject to a condition. Therefore, these resignations cannot be said to be conditional resignations as wrongly found by the Taluka Development Officer. The resignation is a formal renouncement or relinquishment of an office. It must be made with intention of relinquishing the office accompanied by act of relinquishment. The respondents Nos. 2 to 7 by their formal communications dated 5-12-1994 clearly renounced or relinquished their offices. Their intention to relinquish the office is more than clear in these resignation letters. Admittedly, all these resignations were accepted by the sarpanch on the same day. Therefore, the resignations of respondents Nos. The respondents Nos. 2 to 7 by their formal communications dated 5-12-1994 clearly renounced or relinquished their offices. Their intention to relinquish the office is more than clear in these resignation letters. Admittedly, all these resignations were accepted by the sarpanch on the same day. Therefore, the resignations of respondents Nos. 2 to 7 became effective on 5-12-1994 being the date on which they were accepted by the sarpanch as per the provisions of Section 54 (2) of the said Act. ( 10 ) IN the above view of the matter, the iropugned order of the Taluka development Officer cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside and it is declared that the resignations of the respondents nos. 2 to 7 had become effective from 5- 12-1994 being the date on which they were accepted by the Sarpanch in accordance with the provisions of Section 54 (2) of the said Act. Rule is made, absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. .