Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. By consent of both the parties the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the first respondent from acting upon the minutes of the council meeting of Orikkai 1st Grade Panchayat held, on 12.1.2010. 4. The petitioner has stated that she is the elected President of the Orikkai Panchayat in Kanchipuram Panchayat Union. The post of President of Orikkai Panchayat has been reserved for women candidates. The petitioner had contested the Panchayat elections held in the month of October, 2006, as an independent candidate. After she had been elected as the President of the Panchayat she took charge of the post, on 25.10.2006. Since then she has been carrying on her functions to the best of her abilities, without any blemish. 5. While so, some of the members of the Panchayat, who are politically affiliated had wanted to remove the petitioner from the post of President of the Panchayat. They had submitted a representation to the third respondent, on 14.7.2009, making certain false allegations against the petitioner. Based on the said representation, the third respondent had called for an enquiry, on 17.7.2009. The petitioner had explained to the third respondent that the petition was motivated and that the allegations were baseless. 6. The petitioner has further stated that the first respondent District Collector, by his proceedings, dated 25.9.2009, had issued a show cause notice, said to be under Section 205(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, asking the petitioner to submit an explanation on the charges levelled against her. The charges pertained to non-supervision of remittances of tax collections in a Nationalised Bank, expenses incurred without the prior sanction of the Panchayat council, excess expenditure incurred without proper estimates and the expenditure incurred by cash by issuing cheques in the name of the Panchayat Assistant. 7. On receipt of the show cause notice from the first respondent, the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply, on 21.10.2009, to the first respondent, stating that there was no wrongful loss to the Panchayat and that there was no wrongful gain to the petitioner, as alleged in the complaint. 7. On receipt of the show cause notice from the first respondent, the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply, on 21.10.2009, to the first respondent, stating that there was no wrongful loss to the Panchayat and that there was no wrongful gain to the petitioner, as alleged in the complaint. Even though the first respondent had not called for an enquiry, thereafter, the second respondent had issued a notice, dated 4.1.2010, received by the petitioner, on 5.1.2010, calling upon the petitioner to convene a meeting of the council, on 12.1.2010, as per the directions of the first respondent, on the proposal for removing the petitioner from the post of President. In spite of the petitioner’s request to postpone the date of the meeting she was compelled by the second respondent to conduct the meeting, on 12.1.2010. 8. It has been further stated that the meeting of the council had been convened, on 12.1.2010, presided over by the second respondent. During the meeting the second respondent had merely informed the members present that they should affix their signatures in the minutes register, if they were in favour of removing the petitioner from the post of the President. All the nine members, who had participated in the meeting, had signed the minutes register, which was counter-signed by the second respondent. The second respondent had not read over the charges against the petitioner, nor did he read the explanation given by the petitioner to the members of the council. He did not circulate the copies of the charges framed against the petitioner and the explanation submitted by her. There was no discussion, whatsoever, during the meeting on the charges framed against the petitioner. Thereafter, the second respondent had forwarded the minutes of the meeting, to the first respondent, for taking action to remove the petitioner from the post of President of Orikkai Panchayat. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the procedure adopted by the second espondent, during the meeting held on 12.1.2010, is illegal, as it is contrary to Section 205 (7) and (8) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. The mandatory procedures contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, had not been followed by the second respondent, in convening the meeting, on 12.1.2010. The meeting had been convened by the second respondent based on false allegations made by the members of the Panchayat. The mandatory procedures contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, had not been followed by the second respondent, in convening the meeting, on 12.1.2010. The meeting had been convened by the second respondent based on false allegations made by the members of the Panchayat. Since there is no provision under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, for the first respondent to seek for an explanation from the petitioner his only option would be to remove the petitioner from the post of President of the Panchayat. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, praying for a Writ of mandamus to forbear the first respondent from acting upon the minutes of the meeting of the Council of Orikkai 1st Grade Panchayat, held on 12.1.2010, as it is in violation of sub sections 3, 7 and 8 of Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court, reported in Lekh Raj Vs. Muni Lal [ (2001) 2 SCC 762 ] and Kedar Nath Agrawal (dead) and Anr. Vs. Dhanraji Devi (Dead) by Lrs. And Anr. (Manu/SCS/0887/2004), in support of his contentions that subsequent events, which had emerged during the pendency of the writ petition, could also be taken into consideration by this Court to come to its conclusions. He had submitted that, during the pendency of the present writ petition, the District Collector, Kanchipuram, the first respondent herein, had passed an order removing the petitioner from the post of the president of Orikkai 1st Grade Panchayat. Thereafter, he had withdrawn the said order since it had been brought to his notice that an interim order of injunction restraining the first respondent from proceeding further, based on the proceedings, in Na.Ka.No.2547/09/A4/Vu.E(Wu.), dated 25.9.2009. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that in such circumstances, it is clear that the first respondent has already made up his mind to remove the petitioner from the post of the President Orikkai 1st Grade Panchayat. Therefore, it would be appropriate for this Court to take note of such subsequent events that had taken place after the filing of the writ petition. 12. Therefore, it would be appropriate for this Court to take note of such subsequent events that had taken place after the filing of the writ petition. 12. Even though no counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents, the learned counsel Mr.R.Murali, appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the writ petition is premature in nature. It is for the District Collector, Kanchipuram, the first respondent herein, to pass appropriate orders, based on the minutes of the meeting of the council of the Orikkai 1st Grade Panchayat, held on 12.1.2010, which had been forwarded to him by the second respondent. It is for the first respondent to pass orders, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. The present writ petition has been filed on a mere apprehension that the first respondent would pass an adverse order against the petitioner, removing her from the post of Orikkai Panchayat. Even if an adverse order is passed against the president, it would be open to her to move the State Government, under Sub Section 12 of Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, challenging the said order. Further, the allegation made by the petitioner that the second respondent had not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, in convening the meeting of the council, on 12.1.2010, is ill-founded. 13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. The petitioner has not been in a position to substantiate her claim that the second respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, in convening the meeting of the council of Orikkai 1st Grade Panchayat, on 12.1.2010. 14. On the other hand, it is seen from the records placed before this Court that the procedures contemplated, under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, have been followed by the second respondent, in convening and conducting the meeting of the Council. 14. On the other hand, it is seen from the records placed before this Court that the procedures contemplated, under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, have been followed by the second respondent, in convening and conducting the meeting of the Council. It would be open to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the minutes of the meeting forwarded to him by the second respondent. It cannot be said, at this stage, that the first respondent would have no choice, except to pass an order removing the petitioner from the post of President of the Panchayat. Even if such an order is passed by the first respondent, removing the petitioner from the post of the President of the Panchayat, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the same, in the manner known to law. 15. No doubt, it is a settled position of law that subsequent events could be taken into consideration before this Court comes to its final conclusions. However, in the present case, the order, said to have been passed by the first respondent, removing the petitioner from the post of the President of the Orikkai 1st Grade Panchayat had already been withdrawn, as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The passing of the said order by the first respondent and its subsequent withdrawal cannot, by itself, show any mala fide intention on the part of the first respondent, nor can it be said that the first respondent had already made up his mind to remove the petitioner from the post of the President of the panchayat, without considering the relevant records that may be submitted by the petitioner. Even if an adverse order is passed against the petitioner, it would be open to the petitioner to invoke sub Section 12 of Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, challenging the said order. As such, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature in nature. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.