Judgment :- The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.2362/2007/A3, dated 31.01.2008 and the consequential notification of the second respondent as published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette Part IV Section 2 dated 27.02.2008 and quash the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- The petitioner was elected first time as President of Kariyampalayam Panchayat between 2001 and 2006 and again, he was elected for the same post for the period from 2006 to 2011. In order to improve the revenue of the Village Panchayat, the petitioner took steps to collect fee for approval of building plan and levied property tax to the buildings owned by the mill owners. Having aggrieved by the said action of the petitioner, the mill owners sent a false representation to the first respondent, who in turn forwarded the said representation to the second respondent to take suitable action. Thereafter, the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 110. 2007 under Section 205 (1) of The Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, hereinafter called as the Act containing 13 vexatious charges and the same was served on the petitioner only on 310. 2007. In the said show cause notice, the proceedings of the first respondent dated 10. 2007, a report of the Additional Director, Rural Development Department dated 30.09.2007 and 010. 2007 and the memo of the second respondent dated 110. 2007 were referred, hence, the petitioner sent a letter dated 011. 2007 to the second respondent requesting to furnish copies of the said documents, but the second respondent deliberately withdrew the said show cause notice dated 110. 2007 and issued a fresh show cause notice dated 112. 2007, however, for the same set of 13 charges. The petitioner also sent representations dated 112. 2007 and 112. 2007 again requesting the first respondent to furnish copies of the said documents, however the same were not furnished to him. 2007 and issued a fresh show cause notice dated 112. 2007, however, for the same set of 13 charges. The petitioner also sent representations dated 112. 2007 and 112. 2007 again requesting the first respondent to furnish copies of the said documents, however the same were not furnished to him. In the meantime, pursuant to the orders of the second respondent, the third respondent issued a letter dated 08.01.2008 summoning the special meeting of the Panchayat on 21.01.2008, immediately, the petitioner has filed WP No. 1508 of 2008 before this Court to quash the letter dated 08.01.2008 of the third respondent and this Court ordered notice to the respondents and posted the writ petition on 22.01.2008. In the meanwhile, the meeting as scheduled was conducted and a resolution was passed allegedly approving the charges against the petitioner despite the fact the petitioner did not participate in the meeting. The charge Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 related to the previous tenure between 2001 to 2006 and under Section 205 the Act, no action can be initiated by the respondents for the said charges after the expiry of the said tenure. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 30.01.2008 was passed by the second respondent removing the petitioner from the post of President and the same was served to the petitioner by affixture only on 03.03.2008. 3. Mr. Thiyagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 205 of the Act, which admittedly was not on a representation in writing signed by not less than two thirds of the sanctioned strength of the village panchayat but allegedly on the suo motu, indeed such action cannot be construed as a suo motu action by the second respondent since apparently it was initiated at the direction of the first respondent; that the second respondent, without independently applying its mind has initiated the said proceedings and passed the final order, hence, all the actions of the respondents are vitiated; that non-furnishing of the copies of the documents relied on by the second respondent amounts to violation of principles of natural justice; that the second respondent issued the second show cause notice dated 112. 2007 relating to the very same set of charges covered in the first show cause notice dated 110. 2007 relating to the very same set of charges covered in the first show cause notice dated 110. 2007, however, again failed to furnish the said documents, hence, the petitioner could not submit his explanation to the show cause notice; that, the second respondent did not issue any proposal for removal of the Petitioner as President of the Village Panchayat, hence, the third respondent has no jurisdiction to convene the meeting to remove the petitioner from the post of President and to consequently, the impugned order dated 31.01.2008 passed by the second respondent, which was also published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 27.02.2008 are vitiated and prayed for quashing, of both the impugned communications. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the below mentioned decisions: - i) Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 48 , wherein in Para-8, it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court as under:- "8. If the power exercised by the Collector was a quasi judicial power as we hold it to be that power cannot be controlled by the directions issued by the Board. No authority however high placed can control the decision of a judicial or a quasi judicial authority. That is the essence of our judicial system. There is no provision in the Act empowering the Board to issue directions to the assessing authorities or the Appellate Authorities in the matter of deciding disputes between the persons who are called upon to pay duty and the department. It is true that the assessing authorities as well as the Appellate Authorities are judges in their own cause; yet when they are called upon to decide disputes arising under the Act they must act independently and impartially. They cannot be said to act independently if their judgment is controlled by the directions given by others. Then it is a misnomer to, call their orders as their judgments; they would essentially be the judgments of the authority that gave the directions and which authority had given those judgments without hearing the aggrieved party. The only provision under which the Board can issue directions is Rule 233 of the Rules framed under the Act. That rule says that the Board and the Collectors may issue written instructions providing for any supplemental matters arising out of these Rules. The only provision under which the Board can issue directions is Rule 233 of the Rules framed under the Act. That rule says that the Board and the Collectors may issue written instructions providing for any supplemental matters arising out of these Rules. Under this rule the only instruction that the Board can issue is that relating to administrative matters; otherwise that rule will have to be considered as ultra vires Section 35 of the Act." Ii) (V. Subramani vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai -9 and another) wherein a learned single Judge of this Court in Para No.7 held thus:- "7 Therefore, unless and until the procedures contemplated under Section 205 (2) to (1) are strictly complied with, the Inspector of Panchayat cannot to remove the petitioner from the office of the President by virtue of the provisions under Section 205 (11) of the Act. Admittedly, the Inspector of Panchayat namely the 2nd respondent after receiving the complaint even though not presented to him in conformity with Section 205 (1) (b) of the Act by two thirds sanctioned strength of the Village panchayat presented in person to the Inspector by two of the members of the Village Panchayat, had resorted to forward the complaint of the Vice President and Villagers calling for an explanation from the President under Section 205 (1) (b) of the Act and after receiving the explanation and having "not satisfied with the same, he had also forwarded a copy of the notice issued to the President under sub-section (1) of Section 205 and the explanation of the President received with a proposal for removal of President to the Tahsildar under Section 205 (2) of the Act for ascertaining the views of the Village Panchayat. Pursuant to that the village panchayat expressed their views against the removal as communicated by the Tahsildar in his letter dated 110. 1999. Therefore, when the views of the village panchayat were made available to the second respondent, the second respondent ought not to have taken a different view than the one taken by the Village Panchayat " iii) (J. Maria Selvam vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary, Department of Local Administration and Rural Development and another) (2006) 3 MLJ 537 wherein a learned single Judge of this Court, held in para-21 as follows:- ...................................................................... "21... by Secretary, Department of Local Administration and Rural Development and another) (2006) 3 MLJ 537 wherein a learned single Judge of this Court, held in para-21 as follows:- ...................................................................... "21... A reading of Section 205 (12) would show that such right of : appeal has not been given specifically or with statutory force. It is only in case where the right of appeal as a matter of right, the person who is entitled to prefer, such an appeal will have effective right to enforce his argument against the impugned order, On the other hand, a reading of the said sub-section shows that it is a discretionary right available to the petitioner who may move the Government for the purpose of cancellation of the order of the Inspector of Panchayats passed under Section 205 (11) of the Act. It also empowers the Government to suo motu take up any such order passed by the Inspector under Section 205 (11) and cancel the same. Mere power on the part of the Government in cancelling the order of the Inspector issued under subsection (11) and pending such cancellation power to postpone the dates specified in the notification under Section 205 (11) cannot be termed as an effective appeal remedy." iv) (N. Sivakumar vs. K. Vembu, President, Valrakurichi Village, Sendurai Taluk and others) (2008) 3 MLJ 1852 wherein a learned single Judge of this Court held in para-9 thus:- 9. The second appellate authority, who is the Collector has already issued an order of suspension, which has been quashed at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, it is unlikely that the petitioner will get justice from either of the appellate authority and he is right in coming to the Court under Article 226. In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed. It is needless to state that the respondent is always at liberty to proceed against any of the Panchayat servants for acts of misconduct, but that has to be done in accordance with law and the liberty given shall not be considered as a direction, to proceed against any one. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs." 4. Mr. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs." 4. Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted as follows:- The second respondent, as per the inspection report of the Additional Director of Rural Development (Panchayatraj) Chennai, issued the show cause notice dated 112. 2007 to the petitioner containing 13 charges relating to imputation of misconduct, irregularities, failure to discharge his legitimate duties and violation of Rules. The petitioner, after receipt of the said show cause notice has deliberately failed to submit his explanation. The second respondent, after arriving at a satisfactory conclusion, forwarded to the third respondent a proposal for removal of the President after ascertaining the views of the Village Panchayat, accordingly, the third respondent convened the meeting at the office of the Village Panchayat at a time appointed by him and in the meeting, all the members unanimously supported the proposal to remove the petitioner and thereafter, the impugned order dated 31.01.2008 was passed by the second respondent which was also published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazzette dated 27.02.2008. The averment that the respondents have not afforded opportunity to the petitioner is incorrect; that the second respondent sent the show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation, but he failed to submit; that it is incorrect to say that the proposal of removal was not sent by the second respondent to the third respondent; that after obtaining the unanimous views of the Village Panchayat regarding removal of the Petitioner from the post of President, the second respondent has passed the order dated 31.01.2008; that the averments that action initiated by the first respondent is not suo-motu is incorrect; that it is not necessary that the second respondent personally collect information about the petitioner and then take action, collection of information through various sources, applying mind thereon and proceed thereafter also amounts to suo-motu action. In this case, the second respondent applied its mind independently on perusal of the complaint and enquiry report submitted by the Additional Director of Rural Development (Panchayatraj) and initiated action; that the action initiated under Section 205 of the Act can be confined only to the charges against the petitioner pertaining to his omission or commission in the present tenure and such omission and commission relating to the earlier period cannot be gone into is nothing but a misconception of law and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. In support of his contention, the learned Additional Advocate General relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in (District Muslim Welfare and Education Society vs. District Registrar of Societies and others) AIR 1997 Karnataka 383 wherein a learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court held in para-5 thus:- "5. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that an enquiry as contemplated in Section 25 is to be necessarily held, if an application to that effect is filed by the majority of the members of the governing body or of not less than 1/3 of the members of the society. But the legislation at the same time has vested the discretion in Registrar to initiate such an enquiry on his own motion to enquire into the Constitution, working and financial condition of a registered society Such an exercise can be undertaken by the Registrar on his own motion only on the basis of some cogent materials of that purpose. Therefore, for holding an enquiry on his own some information must come to his possession either from the external or from the internal sources, which on an object appraisal may necessiate an enquiry as statutorily prescribed. Keeping in view the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, the question to be answered is, whether the complaints filed by the persons having knowledge about the affairs of the registered society can at all form a basis empowering the " Registrar to hold an enquiry on his own motion. In my opinion, the answer is to be in the affirmative." 5. Mr. Al. In my opinion, the answer is to be in the affirmative." 5. Mr. Al. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in MP No. 2 of 2008, which was filed to implead him as one of the respondents in the writ petition, has submitted that the petitioner is one of the members of Kaliyampalayam Panchayat; that in the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, the petitioner has pointed out that after the issuance of gazzette notification, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.01.2008 of the second respondent and obtained interim stay, which resulted in paralysing all the activities of the Panchayat that as a sitting member of the Village Panchayat and also a person participated in the resolution for removal of the petitioner from the post of President he is entitled. to be heard and prayed for allowing the petition. 6. Now, it is necessary to look into the relevant provisions of Section 205 of the Act, which are as follows: - "205.Removal of President.- (1) The Inspector - .(a) on his own motion, or .(b) on a representation in writing signed by not less than two thirds of the sanctioned strength of the village panchayat containing a statement of charges against the resident and presented in person to the Inspector by any two of the members of the Village Panchayat, is satisfied that the President willfully omits or refuses to carry out or disobeys any provision of this Act, or any rule, by-law, regulation, or lawful order made or issued under this Act or abuses any power vested in him, the Inspector shall, by notice in writing, require the President to offer within a specified date, his explanation with respect to his acts of omission or commission mentioned in the notice. .(2) If the explanation is received within the specified date and the Inspector considers that the explanation is satisfactory, he may drop further action with respect to the notice. If no explanation is received within the specified date or if the explanation received is in his opinion not satisfactory, he shall forward to the Tahsildar of the taluk a copy of the notice referred to in sub-section (1) and the explanation of the president if received within the specified date with a proposal for the removal of the President for ascertaining the views of the village panchayat. .(3) The Tahsildar shall then convene a meeting for the consideration of the notice and the explanation, if any, and the proposal for the removal of the president, at the office of the Village panchayat at a time appointed by the Tahsildar. .(4) A copy of the notice of the meeting shall be caused to be delivered to the President and to all the members of the Village Panchayat by the Tahsildar at least seven days before the date of the meeting. ............... (8A) There shall be no debate in any meeting under this Section (9) The Tahsildar shall not speak on the merits of the notice or explanation nor shall be entitled to vote at the meeting .(10) 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 .(11) The Inspector may, after considering the views of the village panchayat in this regard, in his discretion either remove the President from office by notification with effect from a date to be specified therein or drop further action. .(12) The Government shall have power to cancel any notification issued under subsection (11). and may, pending a decision on such cancellation, postpone the date Specified in such notification .(13) Any person in respect of whom a notification has been issued under sub-section .(11) removing him from the office of the President shall, unless the notification is cancelled under subsection (12), be ineligible for election as president until the date on which notice of the next ordinary elections to the village panchayat is published in the prescribed manner, or the expiry of one year from the date specified in such notification or postponed by the order, if any, issued under sub-section (12) whichever is earlier." 7. Section 205 of the Act contemplates that the Inspector on his own motion or on representation in writing signed by not less than two thirds of the sanctioned strength of the village panchayat containing a statement of charges against the president and presented in person to it by any two of the members of the village panchayat, issue notice in writing to the President. The case of the second respondent is that he initiated proceedings on his own motion. The petitioner pointed out the DO letter dated 10. The case of the second respondent is that he initiated proceedings on his own motion. The petitioner pointed out the DO letter dated 10. 2007 of the first respondent, reports dated 30.09.2007 and 010. 2007 of Assistant Director of Rural Development; and also the first show cause notice dated 110. 2007, wherein both were referred to and the same were just followed, consequently Sec. 205. proceedings were initiated; that though the first show cause notice was cancelled Without assigning any reason, the same documents were followed in the second show cause notice, hence, it is not a suo-motu action. 8. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents counter that receiving of information through various sources, applying its mind thereon and initiating action is certainly an action on own motion; that in this case, the second respondent independently considered the complaint containing charges against the petitioner, which were came to his notice on various sources and on being satisfied, initiated action; that explanation was not submitted by the petitioner, hence, after considering the views the Village Panchayat passed final orders in terms of Section 205 of the Act. 9. The word Inspector is defined in Section 2 (16) of the Act which says that any officer not below the rank of a Collector appointed by the Government to exercise or perform any of the powers or duties of the inspector under this Act. Thus, the Inspector as statutory authority vested with the power to remove the President under Section 205 of the Act. The action for removal of president can be initiated by two modes namely the Inspector, on his own motion and on representation signed by specified two thirds of Panchayat in writing, however, if he is satisfied that the charges disclosing willful omission or commission or refusal to carry out or disobey any provisions of the Act or Rule, Bye law, Regulation, order made or issued under this Act or abuses any power vested in him, issue show cause notice calling for explanation and if any explanation is received, the same is in his opinion not satisfactory or otherwise either to drop or impart further action under Section 205 (2) of the Act. 10. In this case, the complaint received by the first respondent against the petitioner was forwarded to the second respondent with a request to "initiate suitable action and send a report". 10. In this case, the complaint received by the first respondent against the petitioner was forwarded to the second respondent with a request to "initiate suitable action and send a report". On receipt of the same, the second respondent made a note on it stating that " notice to be issued to the Presidents/under Section 205 of the Act ..." Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 110. 2007 containing 13 charges was issued by the second respondent to the petitioner and on receipt of the same, the petitioner has sent a representation dated 011. 2007 and reminder dated 011. 2007 requesting the second respondent to furnish the copies of the documents mentioned in the reference to the Said show cause notice, which were not furnished, but the first show cause notice was cancelled George, Ch-9. and others and the second show cause notice dated 112. 2007 was issued for more or less same set of 13 charges calling upon the petitioner to give his explanation within seven days. The petitioner sent a reply dated 112. 2007 stating that unless the documents sought for by him earlier are furnished, he would not be in a position to submit his explanation. 11. Any complaint is made to an inspector with a view to his taking action against the President under the Act, it amounts to an information, such information is synonymous with knowledge or awareness relating to the allegations with respect to omission or commission of the President. Such an information required to the District Collector to exercise his jurisdiction to proceed against the President under Section 205 of the Act. The source of information is immaterial. The satisfaction of the Inspector relating to the charges on two stages namely for issuing show cause notice and while considering explanation, if any, received within the time. The satisfaction on both stages are mandatory to proceed further for removal of the President for ascertaining the views of Village Panchayat. In this case, the complaints as well as the report received by the first respondent were forwarded to the second respondent. If the Government receives a complaint, it cannot keep mum and necessarily they have to forward it to the authority concerned to initiate suitable action and to send a report. In this case, the complaints as well as the report received by the first respondent were forwarded to the second respondent. If the Government receives a complaint, it cannot keep mum and necessarily they have to forward it to the authority concerned to initiate suitable action and to send a report. The said act cannot be attributed as external force to issue the show cause notice and to say that the second respondent mechanically followed it. The second respondent, on receipt of the same, event in the absence of any representation by the members of the Village Panchayat as contemplated under Section 205 (1) (b) of the Act, on his own motion, however, after satisfying himself relating to the charges. 12. The word satisfaction is defined in Oxford Dictionary - Tenth Edition as "to meet the expectation, needs or desires; provide with" adequate information about or proof of something; comply with, a condition, obligation or demand." The Inspector must be satisfied prima facie for issuing a notice and the prima facie satisfaction has been interposed as a safeguard before the actual initiation of proceedings namely issuing of notice. When we look into the first show cause notice, it, is found that the same was issued based on the enquiry report of the Additional Director of Rural Development which states thus: The second respondent could have felt that the said words employed in the first show cause notice not satisfy Section 205 (1) of the Act, which resulted in cancelling it and issued the second show cause notice. 13. When suo-motu action is initiated, the mind of the second respondent should not be under pressure from any quarters nor should any external force be acting upon it, to take a decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to issue notice or not to issue notice vest absolutely in the second respondent, such discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous" consideration. If the notice contains reasons for initiating proceedings under Section 205 of the Act, it cannot be said the second respondent has not independently applied his mind. The reading of entire second show cause notice makes it clear that the second respondent has independently applied his mind for issuing the same and the issue is answered against the petitioner. 14. Mr. The reading of entire second show cause notice makes it clear that the second respondent has independently applied his mind for issuing the same and the issue is answered against the petitioner. 14. Mr. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that some of the alleged charges relating to the previous tenure are clubbed with the charges relating to the present tenure; that the impart of Section 205 of the Act made it clear that charges, if any, of the present tenure alone can be dealt with by the second respondent, hence, the inclusion of the said charges vitiated the entire proceedings. 15. The process by which the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium of the authoritative forms in which it is expressed. Interpretation is of two kinds, namely, literal and functional. The former is that which regards exclusively the verbal expression of the law. Functional interpretation, on the other hand, is that which departs from the letter of the law, and seeks elsewhere for some other and more satisfactory evidence of the true intention of the legislature. In other words, it is necessary to determine the relative claims of the letter and the spirit of the enacted law. In all ordinary cases, the courts must be content to accept the letter of the law and the exclusive and conclusive evidence of the spirit of the law. .16. The sub-section 13 of Section 205 of the Act contemplates that if any notification of removal of President is issued under sub-section 12, that person be ineligible for election as President until the date on which the notice of the next ordinary election to the village panchayat is published in the prescribed manner or expiry of three years from the date specified in such notification, as postponed by the order, if any issued under sub-section 12, whichever is earlier. The period mentioned in sub-section has nothing to do with the action initiated under Section 205 of the Act. If the Inspector is restrained from taking any action for the willful commission and omission of the President relating to previous tenure as contended by Mr. The period mentioned in sub-section has nothing to do with the action initiated under Section 205 of the Act. If the Inspector is restrained from taking any action for the willful commission and omission of the President relating to previous tenure as contended by Mr. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, an elected president, who commits willful commission, or omission or misappropriate funds of the Panchayat in the last day of his tenure, which came to light after his re-election, no action could be initiated under Section 205, of the Act, besides it defeats the very intent of sub-section 13, hence, the said contention is rejected. It is well settled principle of law that the legislature having socio-economic perspective, ought to be interpreted with widest possible connotation as otherwise the intent of the legislature would stand frustrated (Velamuri Venkata Sivaprasad (dead) by Lrs. vs. Kothuri Venkateswatalu (dead) by Lrs and others ( 1999 (10) Supreme 38 ), hence, the action of the second respondent in clubbing the relating to the previous tenure of the petitioner with the charges committed in the present tenure is valid. 17. The other contention of Mr. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner is non-furnishing of copies of documents required by the petitioner has prejudiced him. The test of prejudice has to be applied wherever there is a violation of facet of principles of natural justice, which, in simple term, would mean no adequate opportunity. The court in such circumstances has to ascertain whether the aggrieved persons indeed have fair opportunity and whether the law of principle would vitiate the final order. As a general rule, if there is violation of procedural provision, which is not of a mandatory in character, the issue has to be examined from the standpoint of the substantial compliance and the order will be set aside only if there is prejudice. (State Bank of India, Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma) AIR 1996 SC 1669 . In this case, no such procedural provision of issuing documents to the petitioner is warranted. The charges contained in the notice is sufficient to the petitioner to answer it as the notice relating to the charges are within the knowledge of the petitioner only. (State Bank of India, Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma) AIR 1996 SC 1669 . In this case, no such procedural provision of issuing documents to the petitioner is warranted. The charges contained in the notice is sufficient to the petitioner to answer it as the notice relating to the charges are within the knowledge of the petitioner only. The petitioner has deliberately net submitted his explanation but chosen to drag on the matter by seeking the documents which are not required to answer the charges, hence, the said contention is rejected. .18. Mr. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proposal for the removal was not forwarded to the third respondent by the second respondent. The said argument was made under the pretext the words proposal for the removal is not found mentioned in the said notice as well as in the notice issued by the third respondent for convening the meeting of Village Panchayat. Though the said words are found missing, the relevant section i.e., Sec. 205 of the Act is clearly mentioned in both the said communications. Mere non-mentioning of each and every word of the section or sub-section of Sec. 205 of the Act will not vitiate the proceedings. It is seen from the records that sub-sections 2 to 10 of Section 205 are meticulously followed by the second respondent and thereafter, the second respondent, on consideration of the unanimous view of the Village Panchayat supporting the removal of the petitioner, passed final orders on 31.01.2008 under Sub-section 11 of Section 205 of the Act and necessary notification was also published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazzette, on 27.02.2008. Subsequently, this writ petition was filed on 07.03.2008, of course, amendment, seeking to quash the said notification dated 27.02.2008 was also prayed for and the same was ordered on 26.06.2008 in MP No. 5 of 2008 in WP No. 6205 of 2008. The second respondent, as a quasi judicial authority, has given reasons for its conclusion for removal of the petitioner, even though the said reasons may not be as elaborate as those of a court of law. 19. The second respondent, as a quasi judicial authority, has given reasons for its conclusion for removal of the petitioner, even though the said reasons may not be as elaborate as those of a court of law. 19. The petition in MP No. 2 of 2008 is filed by a person, who is one of the sitting councillors, who has also participated in passing the resolution for removal of the petitioner, he is a necessary party, hence, MP No. 2 of 2008 is ordered as prayed for. 20. Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents canvassed that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that alternative and efficacious remedy of filing appeal under Section 205 (12) of the Act is available, which is not exhausted. This Court in the decision rendered in (J. Maria Selvam vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary, Department of Local Administration and Rural Development and another) (2006) 3 MLJ 537 ) decided that the said section does not confer a statutory right of appeal but only a discretionary right, such remedy is different from an effective appeal remedy and writ petition is maintainable against the order of inspector. This Court fully follow the said findings. 21. For the above said reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.