ORDER : The Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the District Collector, Thoothukudi, dated 23.05.2013 in Uoo.Ni.5/1090/2013 and the consequential notice issued by the Tahsildar dated 04.06.2013 in Aa4/10055/2013 and quash the same. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the communication sent by the Tahsildar, Tiruchendur, dated 04.06.2013 proposed to convene a meeting to ascertain the views of the members for the removal of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat President under Section 205(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act is illegal for the reason that the sixth respondent has to give seven clear days notice before convening the meeting, as per the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994. The second grievance of the petitioner is that the copy of the Assistant Director of Panchayat's Inspection report was not furnished to him. 4. The learned Government Advocate was put on notice, who in turn submitted that since the welfare Schemes are one of the important functions of the Panchayat, due to the attitude of the petitioner, the Tahsildar convened a meeting pursuant to the direction given by the Inspector of Panchayat under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5 Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, this Court constrains to pass the following order :- A bare perusal of the impugned order would throw light on this Court that the impugned order dated 04.06.2013 was made ready on 04.06.2013, singed on 05.06.2013 and served on the petitioner on 07.06.2013. As per Section 205(4) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994, seven clear days is very much necessary to convene a meeting. Admittedly, only five days time was given to the petitioner as well as the Members. Therefore, the notice issued by the sixth respondent has no legs to stand. Secondly, the inspection report of the Assistant Director of Panchayats was not furnished to the petitioner. Admittedly, only five days time was given to the petitioner as well as the Members. Therefore, the notice issued by the sixth respondent has no legs to stand. Secondly, the inspection report of the Assistant Director of Panchayats was not furnished to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court constrains to pass the following order:- (i) The second respondent is directed to give a copy of the inspection report of the Assistant Director of Panchayat, within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to enable the petitioner to give a reply. On receipt of the report, the petitioner is directed to give his reply within a period of two weeks, thereafter. (ii) Consequently, the order of the sixth respondent impugned in this Writ Petition is set aside (iii) After receiving the explanation from the petitioner, the first respondent is directed to proceed furtherin accordance with law. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.