JUGDMENT A.H. JOSHI, J.:- Rule. By consent made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard learned Advocate Shri. B.G. Kulkarni for the petitioners learned A.G.P. E Shri. P. D. Kothari, for respondent Nos. l, 3 and 4. learned Advocate Shri. P.C. Marpakwar at for respondent No.2 and learned Advocate Shri. M.V. Mohokar for Respondent No. 5. 3. Learned Advocate Shri. Mohokar and learned A.G.P. Shri. Kothari argued in favour of the order, while learned Advocate Shri. Marpakwar stated that spirit in issuing Circular dated 15th June, 1996 be taken into account. 4. According to learned Advocate Shri. B.G. Kulkarni case in question is covered by two reported judgments of this Court namely, (1) 2002(4) ALL MR 741 between Kavita Sakharam Chavan Vs. Commissioner, Kokan Division, Navi Mumbai, and (2) 2007(5) Mh.L.J. 109 between Shivaji Vs. State of Maharashtra. 5, According to learned Advocate Shri. Kulkarni now it is settled law that Section 145(1-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. 1958 will have to be read as a directory and discretion vests with the State Government and in the present case with the Divisional Commissioner to decide as to whether the Panchayat needs to be straightway dissolved when the majority of seats have fallen vacant or to continue with existing strength. 6. According to learned Advocate Shri. Kulkami though various propositions have been advanced in the petition as grounds as to why the decision of the Divisional Commissioner impugned should be struck down the petition can be allowed on the solitary ground of settled position of law as indicated in the precedents noted above. 7. One more 'point has been emphasized by learned Advocate Shri. Kulkarni to show legal malafides namely that initial proposal, Annexure-D, dated 18th April, 2004 was forwarded by the Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parish ad, wherein he proposed appointment of administrator which request was forwarded by the Collector to the Divisional Commissioner under his letter dated 27th Apri 2007 and was pending. Same individual who was Chief Executive Officer, who had sent the letter dated 27th April, 2007. was transferred as Collector at Chandrapur and he again reiterated his recommendations through his communication dated 2nd June, 2007 and thereafter the Divisional Commissioner passed impugned order on 3rd September. 2007. 8. Learned Advocate Shri. Kulkarni then brought to the notice of this Court, mechanical ness with which the order is passed by the Divisional Commissioner. was transferred as Collector at Chandrapur and he again reiterated his recommendations through his communication dated 2nd June, 2007 and thereafter the Divisional Commissioner passed impugned order on 3rd September. 2007. 8. Learned Advocate Shri. Kulkarni then brought to the notice of this Court, mechanical ness with which the order is passed by the Divisional Commissioner. It was shown that after narrating and reciting the background the Divisional Commissioner has observed in last paragraph that the recommendations of the Election Commission do not apply to the case and Section 145(l-A) enables the State to dissolve the Panchayat and appoint an Administrator, and; therefore, he has passed the Impugned order. 9. As this Court finds the crux of the order of the Divisional Commissioner is last sub-paragraph appearing at page 39 of the paper book. Translation of the relevant paragraphs, which is at page 39-D & 39-E is quoted here for ready reference: “It is clear that 10 posts out of 17 have become vacant in Gram Panchayat, Nagbhid. As per Section 145(l-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 the Gram Panchayat can be dissolved if more ban half of the posts become vacant and Gram Panchayat comes in minority. Accordingly in exercise of the powers, Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur hereby dissolves Gram Panchayat, Nagbbid, Tahsil Nagbhid, District: Chandrapur.” 10. It will be clear from the above quotation that Divisional Commissioner has taken recourse to his power to dissolve Panchayat and appoint Administrator just because "As per Section 145(l-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act the Gram Panchayat can be dissolved if more than half of the posts become vacant and Gram Panchayat comes in minority". No other reasons are recorded. 11. In view that Section 145(1-A) has been interpreted and provision has been held to be directory and not mandatory and administrative action would not be warranted. The dictum of two judgments of this Court, which refers to the stability of the Panchayat which is enabled and provided by enacting Section 145(l-A) as directory provision and not as mandatory provision needs to be respected. 12. The Commissioner's order reveals that it is passed just because 'law permits' such order and not because it is so warranted on facts of the case. 13. The order does not spell out any circumstance or fact-finding panchayat (sic) as to why decision of dissolution is so preferred to continuation. 14. 12. The Commissioner's order reveals that it is passed just because 'law permits' such order and not because it is so warranted on facts of the case. 13. The order does not spell out any circumstance or fact-finding panchayat (sic) as to why decision of dissolution is so preferred to continuation. 14. Impugned order also reveals totally erroneous approach in reading and appreciating the directives of the Election Commission. 15. In this background this Court holds that the impugned order suffers from defect of Divisional Commissioner's falling in grave error of acting contrary to precedents and error in appreciation and understanding of directives of Election Commission. To order dissolution just because it can be done is also a totally erroneous approach. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside holding the decision to be erroneous and contrary to settled law. 16. We, therefore, make the Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (i). In the circumstances, parties shall bear own costs. Petition allowed.