In the fresh elections, the present Appellant Laxmi Verma was elected as Councillor and subsequently she was also elected as President of Municipal Council and is companytinuing as such.
Not being satisfied with the said order of dismissal, Appellant carried P.A No.
This order was challenged by Respondent No.
In the meantime, Respondent No.
8, from which Respondent No.
Since the demands were number fulfilled, on 29.12.2008, he, keeping the promise, tendered his resignation.
The Additional Commissioner decided the Revision Application of Respondent No.
6, set aside the order of Collector, whereby his resignation from the post of Councillor of Municipal Council, Achalpur, was accepted, thereby restoring the status of Municipal Councillor to Respondent No.
On being asked by him to put initials at the places scored out by him, which he did, would be deemed to have been signed by him in presence of Collector.
8 of Municipal Council, Achalpur, District Amravati.
4/ 4 This order was challenged by the Appellant in W.P. No.
Election was held sometime in the year 2008.
6 by filing W.P. No.
1550 of 2009, which was partly allowed and the Additional Commissioner was directed to decide the Revision Application afresh after hearing both parties.
6 by order dated 25.02.2009 holding that the Collector had rightly accepted the resignation of Respondent No.
On 18.12.2008, Respondent No.
6, Rupesh Yogeshwar Dhepe was an elected Councillor of Ward No.
6 filed a Revision Application before Additional Commissioner stating therein that he had in fact number resigned in accordance with law 3/ 3 and there has been companyplete violation of Sub section 2 of Section 41 of the Act.
6 was earlier elected and election programme companymenced.
6 wrote a letter to the Collector, threatening to resign, if certain demands made by him were number fulfilled, within a period of ten days.
On his resignation and acceptance thereof, since the seat fell vacant, Collector proceeded to arrange for elections of Ward No.
Deepak Verma, J. Leave granted.
Facts of the case lie in a narrow companypass, which are as under Respondent No.
Thereafter, the Additional Commissioner allowed the Revision Application filed by Respondent No.
On the same analogy the orders passed by learned Single Judge passed in Appellants Writ Petition and companyfirmed by Division Bench in appeal have been attacked.
