ORDER : 1. These writ petitions are filed by the President and Vice President, who have tendered resignation and accepted by the Assistant Commissioner, for a writ of certiorari to quash the official memorandum dated 22.01.2018 passed by the third respondent – Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure-C and C1 and to quash the order dated 21.04.2018 made by the Deputy Commissioner – second respondent vide Annexure-L and also to quash the order dated 29.01.2018 by the second respondent at Annexure-E. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that both were elected as members of the Chunchanakuppe Gram Panchayath, Chunchanakuppe Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk-fourth respondent on 05.06.2015 along with 22 other members. On 07.07.2015, the first petitioner was elected as President and the second petitioner was elected as Vice President of the said Gram Panchayath. The term of the office of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha is for a period of 5 years from the date of election. It is further contended that the petitioners as President and Vice President are rendering their duties without any bad remarks and without any allegation of misuse or abuse of power or misappropriation of funds or other assets of the Panchayath or misconduct in the course of exercise of their functions and they are discharging their duties as Panchayath President and Vice President to the best of their ability and they are instrumental in implementation of many State, Central and rural development projects for the benefit of the residents of said Gram Panchayath and absolutely there are no complaints from the residents of the said Gram Panchayath against these petitioners. 3. It is the further case of the petitioners that some of the members of fourth respondent – Gram Panchayath used to take signatures of the petitioners in the blank letter heads of the Panchayath for getting funds from the competent Authority and some of the members of the Panchayath not satisfied with the bright prospects of the petitioners in their political career used the blank letter heads signed by the petitioners and written on it the resignation and submitted to the third respondent – Assistant Commissioner on 10.01.2018. The reason assigned for the resignation was on the ground of not mentally sound (ill) and personal problems and the same is typed and not handwritten. 4. The reason assigned for the resignation was on the ground of not mentally sound (ill) and personal problems and the same is typed and not handwritten. 4. It is further alleged that in view of the provisions of Section 48 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), Adhyaksha of Gram Panchayath may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Assistant Commissioner and the Upadhyaksha of the Gram Panchayath may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Adhyaksha, in the absence of Adhyaksha to the Assistant Commissioner on the grounds available under Section 48 of the Act. It is further contended that third respondent – Assistant Commissioner is required to conduct enquiry as per Section 48 of the Act which mandates third respondent to satisfy himself that the alleged resignation letters are submitted without threat, coercion, undue influence, allurement and it is submitted voluntarily. The third respondent without conducting enquiry accepted the resignation letters submitted by some of the members of Panchayath due to the political pressure and influence by local political persons without any enquiry and reasons assigned in the alleged resignation letters are ill-health and personal problems which is not accepted for the resignation of the posts as per Section 48(1) of the Act. 5. It is further alleged that in pursuance of the alleged resignation, third respondent has written letter dated 22.01.2018 to second respondent to call for election of vacant posts of President and Vice President. Second respondent has appointed fifth respondent as an administrator of fourth respondent Panchayath and further the Returning Officer has called for election for vacant posts of President and Vice President. Calendar of events was issued on 30.01.2018. It is further contended that petitioners were shocked to know about the alleged action by some of the members of the Panchayath colluding with third respondent has called for election of the President and Vice President by submitting concocted resignation letters. Therefore, the petitioners immediately approached the second respondent – Deputy Commissioner who filed their objections on 30.01.2018 and 31.01.2018 stating that they have not given any resignation to the said posts. The second respondent initiated enquiry in enquiry No ELE (G.P)AUD/CR/03/16-17. 6. During pendency of the proceedings before the second respondent, petitioners had also sought for removal of the administrator. Therefore, the petitioners immediately approached the second respondent – Deputy Commissioner who filed their objections on 30.01.2018 and 31.01.2018 stating that they have not given any resignation to the said posts. The second respondent initiated enquiry in enquiry No ELE (G.P)AUD/CR/03/16-17. 6. During pendency of the proceedings before the second respondent, petitioners had also sought for removal of the administrator. The second respondent only on the report submitted by the third respondent that the petitioners attended the office of the third respondent on 12.1.2018 and had examined the resignation letters and admitted their signatures has upheld the action of third respondent which is wholly illegal. Hence, these petitions are filed for the reliefs sought for. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 8. Sri. D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel for Mahammed Tahir, learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently contended that the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner accepting the resignation letters for the posts of President and Vice President of the Gram Panchayath and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner are erroneous, contrary to the material on record. He would further contend that second and third respondents – Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner have not applied their mind before passing the impugned orders and the impugned orders are without application of mind and with complete disregard to the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. He would further contend that concocted signatures letters at Annexures-B and B1 has been accepted in haste without conducting enquiry by the Assistant Commissioner and he has recorded his satisfaction. He would further contend that in view of the first proviso and second proviso Section 48(1) of the Act, it is the duty and obligation of both the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner shall enquire the cause of the resignation and satisfy the resignation has not been submitted under threat, coercion, undue influence, allurement and it is submitted voluntarily. Both the authorities have not shown the cause or satisfaction of the acceptance of the resignation of the petitioners. 9. He would further vehemently contend that the blank letter heads signed by the petitioners is misused by some of the members. The same has not been enquired into by both the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. Both the authorities have not shown the cause or satisfaction of the acceptance of the resignation of the petitioners. 9. He would further vehemently contend that the blank letter heads signed by the petitioners is misused by some of the members. The same has not been enquired into by both the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. He further contended that though the Assistant Commissioner was satisfied and accepted, there was no need for the Assistant Commissioner to direct the PDO to get the information with regard to resignation and the PDO by letter dated 12.01.2018 confirmed that the petitioners have made resignation voluntarily. Therefore, he submitted the impugned orders cannot be sustained and writ petitions have to be allowed granting relief as sought for. 10. Per contra, Prof. Ravi Verma Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for sixth respondent, one of the member of the Panchayath, sought to justify the impugned action of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. He quickly pointed out that in view of the provisions of Section 48(1) of the Act, the Adhyaksha of the Gram Panchayath may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Assistant Commissioner and the Upadhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Adhyaksha in the absence of the Adhyaksha to the Assistant Commissioner on the grounds mentioned in Sub Section (ii), provisos 1 and 2. The Assistant Commissioner has held enquiry and recorded finding that both the petitioners appeared voluntarily before him personally and submitted their resignation on the ground that they are not mentally sound (ill) and for personal problems and the Assistant Commissioner appraised them that they can withdraw the resignation within ten days. Even after the appraisal by the Assistant Commissioner, they have not withdrawn the resignation tendered and the same was accepted on 22.01.2018. Therefore, the petitioners have filed petitions in the form of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. 11. He further contended that the Deputy Commissioner after considering the entire material on record came to the conclusion that the petitioners voluntarily submitted resignation and the Assistant Commissioner after holding an enquiry as contemplated passed an order. Therefore, the petitions came to be dismissed. Therefore, the petitioners have filed petitions in the form of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. 11. He further contended that the Deputy Commissioner after considering the entire material on record came to the conclusion that the petitioners voluntarily submitted resignation and the Assistant Commissioner after holding an enquiry as contemplated passed an order. Therefore, the petitions came to be dismissed. He would further contend that both the authorities concurrently held that resignation made by the petitioners voluntarily and the same was accepted as even after ten days as contemplated under the provisions of Section 48(3) of the Act they had not been withdrawn. Once the resignation is accepted, it cannot be enquired into by the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petitions. 12. Sri. M. Pradeep representing fourth and fifth respondents – Panchayath Development Officer and Administrator submits that in view of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, fifth respondent has taken charge of the fourth respondent – Gram Panchayath on 29.01.2018. 13. On notice issued by the Court, the learned Government Advocate Smt. Prathima Honnapura filed memo dated 31.05.2018 producing three documents which reads as under: “(1) Communication Letter dated 27.06.2016 from the Department of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj to the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner. (2) Copy of the Note Sheet bearing No. Chunavane/CR/10/2017-18 pertaining to the resignation of the President and Vice President of Chunchanakuppe Grama Panchayat of the Office of the Assistant Commissioner. (3) Copy of the Report of the Panchayat Development Officer dated 12.01.2018.” 14. By the order dated 29.05.2018 this Court had directed the learned Government Advocate to appraise the Court with regard to the following points:- (1) Who held enquiry under the provisions of Section 48(2) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993? (2) Whether the petitioners have made voluntary statement before the Enquiry Officer? (3) Whether the petitioners have made any complaint before the Deputy Commissioner with regard to the resignation was under threat, coercion, undue influence or allurement? (4) Whether the Assistant Commissioner after holding enquiry into the case, satisfied himself before the acceptance? (5) Whether the Assistant Commissioner made enquiry as contemplated under Section 48(1) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993?” 15. (4) Whether the Assistant Commissioner after holding enquiry into the case, satisfied himself before the acceptance? (5) Whether the Assistant Commissioner made enquiry as contemplated under Section 48(1) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993?” 15. She contended that in view of para-4 of the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner (document No. 2 produced along with the memo), clearly depicts that on 10.01.2018 both the petitioners i.e., the President and Vice President appeared personally and submitted resignation letters and subsequently also by post and also stated that due to family problems, ill-health they have submitted resignation voluntarily and the Assistant Commissioner after holding enquiry for the cause of resignation and satisfied that the resignation submitted voluntarily by the petitioners was not under threat, coercion, undue influence or allurement. She also brought to the notice of this Court, in the same para that the Assistant commissioner apprised both the petitioners, if they want to withdraw resignation they have 10 days time from 10.01.2018 and in spite of the same they have not withdrawn. Therefore, finally Assistant Commissioner accepted resignation on 22.01.2018. She would further contend that Deputy Commissioner considering the entire material on record passed the impugned order, the same is in accordance with law and she would further contend that both the authorities categorically recorded the finding that the resignation made by the petitioners voluntarily without threat, coercion and allurement. Therefore, this Court cannot reinvestigate the same in exercise of the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore sought to dismiss the writ petitions. 16. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the documents produced by the learned Government Advocate as per memo dated 31.05.2018 carefully. 17. At this stage, Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the instructing counsel has filed memo today in the open Court for withdrawal of the writ petitions. 18. Memo dated 1st June 2018 is placed on record. 19. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.