JUDGMENT :- Upon hearing the petitioner, this Court by its order dated 4th February, 2008, had issued notice calling parties to remain present for final disposal of the present petition, and had also granted interim order. 2. Hence Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. Fresh service on Respondent No,7 is dispensed with. Respective Advocates waive service. 3. In this petition, petitioner challenges order [Annex.H page 65] passed by the Collector, whereby the Collector had set aside the acceptance of resignations of members of Panchayat of Village Bhalegaon [Ran], Taluka . Malkapur, Distt. Buldana. As its consequences, five members of Panchayat, who had resigned and those resignations were accepted. were restored to the office. 4. The respondents have appeared and opposed the petition, including on the point of availability of alternate remedy. 5. After hearing, this Court finds that the case is to be decided on the questions of law agitated and any factual matters do not fall within the compass of adjudication. Further, as this Court has already spent considerable time. it would not be necessary to direct parties to exhaust alternate remedy. 6. The case proceeds on certain admitted facts, namely :- [a] Eight members of Panchayat submitted letters/notices of resignation. Out of those eight, five are subject-matter of this petition. [b] Signatures on notices by respondent nos.2 to 6 and contents thereof are not disputed. [c] The copies of notices, which are at Annexure-B-I to B-5 to the petition, reveal that those are in the printed format as prescribed under Rule 3[2] of the Bombay Village Panchayat [Delivery of Notice of Resignations] Rules, 1965. [d] It is seen that based on the said notice, the meeting was convened for consideration of the resignations. [e] The meeting, as convened, was held and its minutes are drawn. [f] In the minutes, it is recorded that the three members have denied the fact of their resignations or have withdrawn notices of resignation. [g] It is recorded in the minutes that present respondent nos.2 to 6 have accepted the fact of resignations and those to be their own, and these five resignations were accepted by the Panchayat. [h] The respondents challenged the acceptance of resignations by filing two separate petitions, one by Sau. Sangeeta Ravi Dashrathe, the respondent no.2, and another by Narayan Varade. Haheshsingh A. Thakur. Vinayak N. Garmode and Sau. [h] The respondents challenged the acceptance of resignations by filing two separate petitions, one by Sau. Sangeeta Ravi Dashrathe, the respondent no.2, and another by Narayan Varade. Haheshsingh A. Thakur. Vinayak N. Garmode and Sau. Sunandabai V. Kharche, the respondent nos.3 to 6. [i] Respondents have challenged legality of tendering and acceptance of resignations. 7. In both the petitions filed before the Collector, the allegations, which are made, can be summarized as follows :- [I] The purported resignations are not genuine. Signatures on blank papers were obtained, which were converted into resignations and, therefore, the members had no intention to tender resignations. [2] Resignations were tendered to the Secretary and not to Sarpanch and hence those were not legally tendered. [3] No discussion on the resignations was held in the meeting. [4] Special meeting held on 27th August. 2007 for discussion on resignations itself was illegal and resignations cannot be accepted. [5] Resignations have not been legally accepted. 8. It is pel1inent to note that Point Nos.1 to 3 quoted in the foregoing paragraph as raised by the petitioner in his petition before Collector raise a factual dispute. Other questions are relating to issues in law. 9. After hearing the parties. it is seen that :- [a] In the order, which runs into about three pages, first half of the page is consumed in narration of cause title. [b] In one-and-half page. rival pleadings have been incorporated. [c] In last paragraph, before operative order, the Collector has recorded reasons consisting of one line for each point. [d] The factual dispute, which really arose. is not discussed and dealt with, and particularly the assertion of the respondents that resignations were given on blank papers is not at all dealt with and ruled. And [e] The statement of Sarpanch that he had himself received resignations, passed acknowledgment and additional acknowledgment was given by the Secretary is also not dealt with. 10. It is seen that in the impugned order passed by the Collector, he has recorded, in brief, the reasons in support of his order, which can be summarized as follows :- [i] That, the resignations do not bear an endorsement of the Sarpanch that those were received by him. [ii] In the meeting, there was no discussion on the subject. It is seen that in the impugned order passed by the Collector, he has recorded, in brief, the reasons in support of his order, which can be summarized as follows :- [i] That, the resignations do not bear an endorsement of the Sarpanch that those were received by him. [ii] In the meeting, there was no discussion on the subject. [iii] The very fact of acceptance of resignations is challenged by the members and raised a dispute about validity of resignations, namely the resignations must not have been tendered and delivered to Sarpanch. 11. In the light of what Collector has done, it would be necessary to see the effect of undisputed factual aspect. Analysis of factual aspect 12. Upon scrutiny of documents, it is seen that letters of resignations, photo copies whereof are at Annexures-B-1 to B-5 and correctness thereof is not denied or disputed, are rather admitted to be true and correct photo copies of the originals. 13. It is clear that these resignations are tendered in printed format and those are not suggestive of being signed on a typed sheet or signed on a blank sheet of paper and then converted into resignation by typographical writing thereon. 14. First point referred to in para 7 is, therefore, liable to be discarded at the outset and without need of any further enquiry. 15. It is seen that the letters of resignation are addressed to Sarpanch. It is further seen that in the reply filed by the Sarpanch before Collector, it is specifically averred that the member concerned brought the resignation him self herself, delivered it, secured acknowledgment from the Sarpanch and also secured additional acknowledgment from Secretary, and have suppressed the acknowledgment given by Sarpanch. 16. The assertion of the petitioner Sarpanch to the effect that the resignations were tendered to Sarpanch has not been refuted by any rejoinder or by attempting to produce any evidence to deny and contradict it, and prove the plea of the members about the manner of its tender. 17. Admittedly, the members did not tender any evidence including own affidavit, to prove their case and dispute the version of Sarpanch. 18. In view of discussion contained in paras 15 to 17, it has to be held that Respondents have failed to prove that the resignations were not tendered to Sarpanch. 19. 17. Admittedly, the members did not tender any evidence including own affidavit, to prove their case and dispute the version of Sarpanch. 18. In view of discussion contained in paras 15 to 17, it has to be held that Respondents have failed to prove that the resignations were not tendered to Sarpanch. 19. Point No.2 in para 7 is, therefore, liable to be held against respondent nos.2 to 6. 20. It is seen that the minutes of meeting, which are on record, clearly indicate that :- [a] in all eight resignations were tabled; [b] out of those, members, whose resignations were at Serial Nos.1 to 5, had accepted those to be their own; [c] resignations at Serial Nos.6 to 8 were withdrawn by the concerned by remaining present; [d] Resignations of those at Serial Nos.1 to 5 were accepted, and [e] the comments of the observer of the meeting were also not dealt with, considered, and on any ground, rejected. 21. It is also admitted that an independent observer - Shri. Vaizalkar, Extension Officer, was also present in the meeting. Neither he was arrayed as respondent, nor was his report and affidavit sought/summoned. He could have been best independent witness to support the plea of respondent nos.2 to 6 had it been factual. 22. In so far as third point contained in para 7 on facts is concerned, it is not shown that any discussion was necessary. In this situation, whether any discussion was held is insignificant. Moreover, failure to examine independent observer weakens the grievance on the point as to failure to faithfully record the minutes etc. 23. Third point in para no.7 is, thus, liable to be answered against the respondent nos.2 to 6. 24. In this background, the order of Collector is liable to be regarded as passed in total disregard to the records of the case. 25. It seems that the Collector has formed a subjective opinion in total disregard to the objective material borne on record. Therefore, the reasons recorded by the Collector cannot be regarded as reasons at all. 26. In these premises, the petitioner has made out a case demonstrating that the order passed by the Collector is not only without reasons, but is contrary to record and deserves to be set aside. 27. Record of this petition and facts emerging there from are not at all disputed. 26. In these premises, the petitioner has made out a case demonstrating that the order passed by the Collector is not only without reasons, but is contrary to record and deserves to be set aside. 27. Record of this petition and facts emerging there from are not at all disputed. Had further enquiry on facts been necessary, this Court would have certainly considered to remand the case to the Collector, however, facts borne on record reveal an indisputable portrait and no fact-finding is called for. 28.In the circumstances, impugned order dated 11th December, 2007 [Annex.H] is liable to be set aside, and is hereby set aside. Acceptance of resignations of respondent nos.2 to 6, as done by the Panchayat, shall become final. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 29.In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear own costs. Petition allowed.