JUDGMENT - DESHPANDE A.P., J.:---Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 3. The Assistant Government Pleader and the Counsel appearing for the parties waive service for the respective respondents. 4. The instant petition is filed by the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Dongarkada (Taluka : Kallamnuri, District : Hingoli), calling in question an order passed by the Commissioner, in exercise of powers under section 145 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (For short, hereafter referred to as "the Act") dissolving the Village Panchayat under section 145(1-A) of the Act, as it found that more than half of the total numbers of seats in the Panchayat have become vacant. It is not in dispute that the strength of Panchayat is 15 and 8 members had tendered resignation. 5. Twofold submission is made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner: firstly, that no opportunity was made available to the petitioner and the other remaining members to show cause why the Panchayat should not be dissolved. In his submission, section 145(1) of the Act, which governs sub-section (1-A), postulate granting of an opportunity to the members of the Panchayat, of being heard in the matter, in case, the State Government or the Commissioner proposes to pass an order of dissolution for the reasons contained in sub-section (1-A) of the Act. The second submission is that section 29(1) of the Act, which provides the delivery of the resignation in a manner prescribed, is mandatory. He submits that the section lays down that the member needs to tender resignation to the Sarpanch and the tender of resignation in the manner laid down is mandatory as word 'shall' is used in the section. I proceed to deal with the second submission first. 6. My attention is drawn to the Rules framed in regard to the tender of resignation. The relevant Rules are Bombay Village Panchayats (Delivery of Resignation and Notice of Resignation) Rules, 1965. Rule 3 of the said Rules reiterates and lays down that the resignation of the office of a member given under sub-section (1) of section 29 shall be delivered by the members to the Sarpanch. The relevant Rules are Bombay Village Panchayats (Delivery of Resignation and Notice of Resignation) Rules, 1965. Rule 3 of the said Rules reiterates and lays down that the resignation of the office of a member given under sub-section (1) of section 29 shall be delivered by the members to the Sarpanch. Sub-section (2) of section 3 of the said Rules provides that every such resignation or notice of resignation shall be in Form 1 and shall be delivered by registered post with acknowledgement due or personally or through any person duly authorised in writing in this behalf by the person who gives resignation or, as the case may be, notice of resignation, and the authority to which such notice is delivered, is obliged to acknowledge receipt of the same and issue a receipt in Form II in token of having received such notice. 7. So, what is relevant to note is that not only section 29 of the Act provides, "the resignation shall be delivered in the manner prescribed", but Rules are framed laying down the manner in which resignation is to be tendered and it also provides form not only for tender of resignation but also an acknowledgment to be tendered by the authority who is to receive the resignation. If everything has been provided for by framing the Rules in regard to tender of resignation and as the word shall is used in section 29(1) of the Act, it is imperative to hold that section 29(1) of the Act is mandatory and, as such, strict compliance thereof is necessary. No doubt, the petitioner has contended that the resignations were not handed over to him but were sent to the Panchayat Samiti and as per the direction of the Panchayat Samiti, meeting was convened on 20th August, 2002; whereas it is the case of the respondent, that all the eight members had handed over the resignations to the petitioner and then he handed it over to the Secretary and the Secretary of the Panchayat had issued an acknowledgment to bring home the fact that the regulations were tendered to the Sarpanch. The learned Counsel for the respondent has invited my attention to page 13 which is one of the resignations and the same is addressed to the Sarpanch. The learned Counsel for the respondent has invited my attention to page 13 which is one of the resignations and the same is addressed to the Sarpanch. To some extent, this question involves a disputed question of fact and if and in case, the decision on the first point goes in favour of the petitioner, I may not be called upon to answer the second question that is raised. In support of the first submission, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the right of hearing is provided for in section 145(1) of the Act itself, before an impugned order of dissolution of Panchayat is passed and that section 145(1) governs sub-section (1-A) and hence, principles of natural justice need to be complied with. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in 2003(2) Bom.C.R. 821 , in the case of (Kavita Sakharam Chavan others v. Commissioner, Kokan Division, Navi Mumbai others)1. The Division Bench was called upon to interpret section 145(1-A) of the Act and was also called upon to pronounce as to whether there is a right of hearing contained in section 145(1) of the Act to the members of the Panchayat before an order of dissolution could be made. The Division Bench has categorically held that it is not a must in every case, that if the strength is reduced to less than fifty percent as envisaged by sub-section (1-A), then there ought to be automatic dissolution. The Division Bench has held that it would be open for the State Government not to dissolve a Panchayat in exercise of its discretion vested in it by section 145(1) of the Act, and the Division Bench has also held that sub-section (1-A) is regulated by section 145(1) and, as such, there is a right of hearing provided for to the members before the impugned order is passed. The issues were framed by the Division Bench and the same are answered in para 21 of the judgment. The issues were framed by the Division Bench and the same are answered in para 21 of the judgment. Para 21 of the judgment reads thus : "....In the circumstances, we answer the two questions raised at the beginning of the judgment as follows:- (i) The provision of section 145(1-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 will have to be read not as a mandatory but a directory one containing a discretion with the State Government. It is not that when the majority of the seats falls vacant that the Government can straightway dissolve a Panchayat. (ii) It is just and necessary that when at any time such a decision to dissolve a Panchayat is to be arrived at, the members of the village Panchayat ought to be heard. We read such a provision for a hearing in section 145(1-A) of the said Act." The above observations leave no room of doubt that when a decision to dissolve a Panchayat is to be arrived at, the members of the village Panchayat ought to be heard. The said right of hearing is read in provisions of section 145(1-A) of the Act. If that be so, in view of the admitted position in the present petition, that the Panchayat meaning thereby, members of Panchayat, were not heard in the matter, on this count alone, the decision of the Commissioner dissolving the Panchayat, falls to the ground. As I have recorded an affirmative finding in favour of the petitioner, on the first point and as there are some factual disputes in regard to the fact situation so far as next point is concerned, I desist to pronounce on the said question. 9. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26-12-2002, at Exhibit 'C' to the petition, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, is quashed and set aside. 10. Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed. -----