Judgment – A.Selvam, J. This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order dated 21.1.2009 passed in WP(MD) No.275 of 2009. 2. The respondents 2 and 3 herein are the members of Sernthamangalam Kaspa Panchayat. Since they failed to attend three consecutive meetings of the council, the panchayat President has removed them and the same has been challenged before the Block Development Officer who has been arrayed as first respondent and he set aside the order of removal passed by the Panchayat President and the order passed by the Block Development Officer has been challenged in WP(MD) No.275 of 2009. 3. The learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition and thereby set aside the order passed by the first respondent viz., the Block Development Officer and further observed that as per Tamil Nadu Panchayats (7th Amendment) Act 2008, Government alone is having jurisdiction to take action in accordance with the concerned provision. Against the order passed by the learned single judge, the present Writ Appeal has been filed. 4. The only question that comes up for consideration in the present Writ Appeal is as to whether the power of removal of members vest with the President or the Government is having such kind of power. 5. It is seen from the records that during the relevant period, the appellant has acted as Village Panchayat and since the respondents 2 and 3 have failed to attend three consecutive meetings of the council, the appellant/village panchayat has removed them and the same has been challenged before the first respondent viz., the Block Development Officer and he set aside the order passed by the appellant/village Panchayat. 6. The order passed by the Block Development Officer has been challenged in WP(MD)No.275 of 2009. 7. The learned single judge has given a specific finding to the effect that neither the Village Panchayat President nor Block Development Officer is having power of removal in view of the Amendment Act 2008. 8. 6. The order passed by the Block Development Officer has been challenged in WP(MD)No.275 of 2009. 7. The learned single judge has given a specific finding to the effect that neither the Village Panchayat President nor Block Development Officer is having power of removal in view of the Amendment Act 2008. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner has repeatedly contended that the respondents 2 and 3 have been removed as per Section 38(J) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and the power of removal vest with the appellant/ petitioner as President of Village Panchayat as per Section 39(2) of the Act and the learned single judge has failed to interpret the provision of the sub section 1 of Section 41 of the Amended Act and therefore, the observation made by the learned single judge is liable to be set aside. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has contended that as per provision of sub section 1 of Section 41 of the Amended Act, if any question arises with regard to removal or disqualification of a member, the same should be referred to the Inspector to the Government whose decision shall be final. Under the said circumstances, the learned single judge has set aside the order passed by the first respondent viz., the Block Development Officer and also observed that neither the petitioner nor the first respondent is having power of removal and therefore, the order passed by the learned single judge does not require any interference. 10. For considering the rival submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into the relevant provisions of Amendment Act, 2008, wherein Section 38 deals with various grounds of removal and especially we are concerned with ground 3(i) of Section 38. 11. As pointed out earlier, the only question that has to be decided in the present lis is as to whether the President of Village Panchayat is having power of removal or such kind of power vests with Government. 12. 11. As pointed out earlier, the only question that has to be decided in the present lis is as to whether the President of Village Panchayat is having power of removal or such kind of power vests with Government. 12. The entire argument put forth on the side of the first respondent viz., Block Development Officer is based upon the amended section of 41(1) of the Amended Act and the same reads as follows: "If any question arises as to whether any person who has been elected as a member of panchayat or who becomes a member of a panchayat is not qualified or has become disqualified under Section 33 or Section 34 or Section 35 or sub-section (3) of Section 38 or 38-A or cessation under Section 40, the question shall be referred by the Inspector to the Government whose decision shall be final." 13. Even a mere reading of the said provision, it is made clear to the Court that if any person has been removed or disqualified by invoking Section 33 or Section 34 or Section 35 or Sub-section (3) of Section 38 or 38-A and if any question arises with regard to such kind of disqualification or removal, the same shall be referred to the Inspector to the Government whose decision shall be final. Therefore, by way of making amendment to Section 41 and by way of introducing sub section (1), the power of village president so as to remove a member on the basis of the grounds mentioned in Section 38, has not been taken away and Village President is having such kind of power under Section 39(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. Further even at the risk of repetition the Court would like to point out that provision of sub section (1) of Section 41 of the amended Act deals with any question that arises with regard to disqualification made under the Sections mentioned therein. Now, here the respondents 2 and 3 have been disqualified on the ground mentioned in Section 38(J) and also by invoking provision of Section 39(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994. Now, here the respondents 2 and 3 have been disqualified on the ground mentioned in Section 38(J) and also by invoking provision of Section 39(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994. Therefore, it is quite clear that Village Panchayat President is having power or removal and the same has been done in accordance with the provision of section 39(2) and if any question arises with regard to removal or disqualification, the affected person can invoke the amended provision of sub section (1) of Section 41 of the amended Act. But the learned single judge has failed to consider the power of removal vests with Village panchayat President under Section 39(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and also failed to consider that sub section (1) of Section 41 of the amending Act deals with any question touching the disqualification made under the provision of section mentioned therein and erroneously observed that the writ petitioner/Village Panchayat is not having such kind of power of removal. 14. During the Course of argument it is learnt that the period of the respondents 2 and 3 has al ready become expired. Considering the fact that the period of the respondents 2 and 3 has already become expired and also considering that the observation made by the learned single judge is erroneous on the basis of the discussion made supra, this Court is of the view to allow the Appeal in part as stated infra. 15. In fine, this Writ Appeal is allowed in part and the observation made by the learned single judge to the effect that the President of Village Panchayat is not having power of removal, is alone set aside.