Judgment 1. Thepetitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order of the first respondent dated 10.7.1998 whereby the petitioner was removed from the Presidentship of the village panchayat known as Eanathi. 2. The petitioners grievance is that the impugned order refers to the provision Sec.205 (1) (b) of the Panchayat Act, 1994 which requires that there should be a representation in writing signed by not less than two third of the sanctioned strength of the village panchayat containing the statement of the charge against the President. In this case there was no such representation from not less than two third of the sanctioned strength and as such, the impugned order is illegal and liable to be quashed. 3. After notice, the first respondent has filed counter. It is specifically stated that the action has been taken under Sec.205(1) (a) as there were several complaints against the petitioner herein. Even though the impugned order refers to Sec.205(1)(b), it is only a mistake and virtually the action has been taken by the first respondent under Sec.205(1) (a) and hence the impugned order is sustainable. 4. During the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner however contended that Sec.205(3) requires the Tahsildar to convene the meeting for the consideration of the notice and the inspection if any and the proposal for the removal of the President. In this case, the proposal for the removal of the President has not been placed before the meeting by the Tahsildar and hence the removal of the petitioner from the Presidentship cannot be sustained. Since the questions raised is only pertaining to the interpretation of the sections, it is unnecessary to traverse the facts of the case as there was no dispute that there was a meeting convened by the Tahsildar for which a notice has been issued on 5.6.1998 to consider the charges framed against the petitioner as well as the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The said notice is as follows: "TAMIL" 5. On the basis of the said notice, the learned counsel for petitioner contends that there is no specific intimation for the members of the panchayat that the meeting has been convened to consider the removal of the President i.e., the petitioner herein. The notice contains that whether the petitioner is to be continued as President or to be removed and as such it is vague and not contemplated under Sub-sec. The notice contains that whether the petitioner is to be continued as President or to be removed and as such it is vague and not contemplated under Sub-sec. (3) of Sec.205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. In Sec.205(3), it only refers that the proposal for the removal of the President which does not mean that the question for consideration is only for the removal of the President and not otherwise. The notice issued to the members of the Panchayat clearly satisfied that the question for consideration is whether the President is to continue or to be removed. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the removal of the President is not before the Panchayat Board meeting. 6. Further, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the panchayat has not passed a resolution for removal of the petitioner from the Presidentship and as such, the first respondent has no authority to pass the impugned order. The learned Additional Government Pleader referred to Sub-secs.8 and 10 of Sec.205 which are as follows: “(8) As soon as the meeting convened under this section is commenced, the Tahsildar, shall read to the village panchayat the notice of the inspector and the explanation. If any, of the president, for the consideration of which it has been convened. (1) The views of the village panchayat shall be duly recorded in the minutes of the meeting and a copy of the minutes shall forthwith on the termination of the meeting be forwarded by the Tahsildar to the Inspector.” From the above extracted provisions of the statute, the Additional Government Pleader contended that the Tahsildar has to convene the meeting only to ascertain the views of the members of the Panchayat and as soon as the meeting was over, he has to communicate the views of the members of the Panchayat to the Collector/Inspector of Panchayat. Ultimately, under Sub-sec.(11) of Sec.205, the discretion has been given to the Inspector of Panchayat to consider the views of the village panchayat and to decide as to whether the President has to be removed or can be continued. In the said meeting, the views of the members of the panchayat have been ascertained and the minutes have been recorded. Ultimately, under Sub-sec.(11) of Sec.205, the discretion has been given to the Inspector of Panchayat to consider the views of the village panchayat and to decide as to whether the President has to be removed or can be continued. In the said meeting, the views of the members of the panchayat have been ascertained and the minutes have been recorded. The petitioner herself has signed the said minutes wherein out of nine charges, three have been held to be proved. The Tahsildar forwarded the views of the Panchayat members to the first respondent. In this case, after considering the views expressed by the members of the panchayat, the first respondent ultimately decided to remove the petitioner from the Presidentship. As there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and there is no irregularity in the procedure adopted by the Tahsildar in conducting the meeting, I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.