Collector's temporary succession during casual leave validated receipt of resignation and defeated later withdrawal under municipal law.

The expression "Collector" under the Municipalities Act was read with the Bombay General Clauses Act and the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code so that, when the Collector was on casual leave, the Additional Collector could temporarily discharge the Collector's functions. The Article states that Section 10 of the Land Revenue Code operates as a continuity provision and that casual leave falls within the Collector being unable to perform duties. On that basis, a resignation handed to the Additional Collector was validly received under Section 53(2) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, took effect on 16-12-1992, and was not undone by a later withdrawal on the same day.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's resignation as President of the Municipal Council became effective when it was received by the Additional Collector while he was functioning as Collector during the Collector's casual leave, and whether the petitioner's later withdrawal of resignation could prevent the resignation from taking effect.

Analysis: The expression "Collector" in the Municipalities Act was construed in the light of the Bombay General Clauses Act and the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Section 10 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was read purposively as a continuity provision applicable whenever the Collector is unable to perform duties, so that the Additional Collector temporarily succeeds to the office and may discharge duties under other laws as well. The Court rejected a narrow meaning of "disabled from performing his duties" and held that the Collector's casual leave fell within that expression. The letter granting casual leave and directing arrangements showed that the Additional Collector was acting as Collector at the relevant time. On that basis, the resignation handed over to him was validly received by the Collector within the meaning of Section 53(2) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act. Since the resignation was effective from 16-12-1992, the later withdrawal on the same day could not undo it.

Conclusion: The resignation was validly received and had taken effect before the withdrawal, so the petitioner ceased to hold office and could not succeed in the writ petition.

---