Judgment :- A.K. Ganguly, C.J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Appeal has been filed impugning an order dated 19. 2008 passed by a learned Judge of the Writ Court. By the said order, the learned Judge of the Writ Court was pleased to set aside an order dated 8. 2008 passed by the District Colllector cum Inspector of Panchayat, Villupuram District, Villupuram, the first appellant herein, removing the first respondent herein, viz. the writ petitioner, from the presidentship of Mela Arungunam Panchayat. The learned Judge, while passing the said order, held that under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to a `the said Act), the Inspector has power to act either on his own motion or on a representation given in writing by two-third members of the village panchayat. Acting on such power, the Inspector could conduct an enquiry against the President of a Village Panchayat following the due process contemplated under Section 205 of the said Act and if, thereafter, the Inspector is satisfied that any act of impropriety or misappropriation has been committed by the President, he can pass an order of removal of the President. The learned Judge found that in the instant case, the action was initiated against the President not on his own motion nor on the representation of the two-third members of the village panchayat, but only on the basis of a Complaint given by the Rotary Community corps, Melarungunam dated 5. 2007. 2. This Court has looked into the materials available on record. It appears that a show cause notice dated 110. 2007 was issued to the first respondent by the Inspector Panchayat in the following manner : "I, the Inspector of Panchayat and the District Collector framing charges against you, Tmt. S. Tamizh Selvi, the President of Village Panchayat, Melarungunam of Gingee Panchayat Union under Section 205(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 for the following lapses. You are directed to offer your explanation in hand written within 15 days that why not action may be initiated against you for the charges framed. If your explanation is not received within the stipulated time or explanations offered by you is not satisfactory, further course of action will be initiated under Section 205(2) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994. You are directed to offer your explanation in hand written within 15 days that why not action may be initiated against you for the charges framed. If your explanation is not received within the stipulated time or explanations offered by you is not satisfactory, further course of action will be initiated under Section 205(2) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994. Charge No.1 That you have misappropriated Rs.50,480/- while executing the improvement of lake works under NREGA during 15. 2007 to 15. 2007 and on 15. 2007 by preparing NMR as if 631 beneficiaries were worked and forged their signature in the NMR and also drawn the amount of Rs.40,480/- from the Indian Bank, Ananthapuram in the Account No.55416618 (Panchayat Account) on 25. 2007 and thus causing loss to Government. Charge No.2 That you have misappropriated Rs.12,960/- while executing the improvement of Pond works under NREGA during 15. 2007, 25. 2007 and 25. 2007 by preparing NMR as if 162 beneficiaries were work and forged their signatures and also remit the amount of Rs.50,480/- from the account of Indian Bank, Ananthapuram in the Account No.55416618 on 25. 2007 and thus causing loss to Government. Charge No.3 That she violated Government Rules and misappropriated the amount meant for village people and benefited himself, thus caused loss to Government and also detrimental to administration." There are three charges in the said show cause notice. We are not going into those charges since we are not deciding the matter on merits. This Court is considering only the limited question, whether the finding of the learned Single judge on an interpretation of Section 205 of the said Act is correct. 3. It may be true that while forming the opinion suo motu, the Inspector has relied on some information which he has received. Such formation of opinion suo motu or on the own motion of the authority is permissible. It is not expected that an authority will form his opinion without any basis. If an authority who is empowered to act suo motu receives any information which he finds credible or prima facie acceptable, then by applying his mind to that material, the authority can act suo motu. 4. Reference in this connection may be made to the provision of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act also, Court can act suo motu. 4. Reference in this connection may be made to the provision of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act also, Court can act suo motu. The provision of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act is set out hereinbelow: 15.(1) In the case of a Criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on motion made by — .(a) the Advocate General, or .(b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate General. .(2) In the case of any Criminal contempt of a Subordinate Court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the Subordinate Court or on a motion made by the Advocate General or, in relation to a Union Territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf." 5. Considering the said provision, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Sarkar, Member, Board of Revenue v. Vinay Chandra Misra, 1981 (1) SCC 436 , held that if the High Court acts on information derived from its own sources, such as perusal of records of a Subordinate Court or on reading a newspaper or hearing a public speech, without there being any reference either from the Subordinate Court or from the Advocate General, it can take cognizance of the alleged contumacious action on its own motion. Therefore, the expression `on its own motion has to be given a reasonable interpretation. The said expression cannot be read to mean that the person who is empowered to act on his own motion will act without any material on record but just on his own imagination or on his own ipse dixit. That would amount to acting in a arbitrary manner. A public authority who is entrusted with suo motu powers to act for public benefit can act on the basis of a public Complaint, provided he finds that there is substance in the Complaint. It may be true that if the public authority is moved by interested party under any statutory provision and he acts under that provision that may not be an action on the basis of suo motu exercise of his power. It may be true that if the public authority is moved by interested party under any statutory provision and he acts under that provision that may not be an action on the basis of suo motu exercise of his power. But in the instant case, nobody has moved the Inspector on the basis of any statutory provision. Only a Complaint dated 6. 2007 has been filed before the Inspector by the Rotary Community Calls with some details, and the Inspector, having found the said Complaint to be of some substance, has acted suo motu. Thus, there is no error in initiation of the proceedings in the instant case. Therefore, we cannot accept the finding of the learned Single Judge. 6. However, against the order which has been passed by the Inspector, the person aggrieved has the right to approach the Government under Section 205(12) of the said Act. The said provision is extracted hereinbelow: "(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." The said provision has not been exhausted before filing the Writ Petition. We, therefore, give liberty to the writ petitioner, the first respondent herein, to exhaust the said remedy, if she is so advised, within a fortnight from today. If the first respondent approaches the Government within the period stipulated above, the Government may pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of working of the said remedy. We do not make any observation on the merits of the case of the first respondent. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2008 is closed.