ORDER This writ petition is directed against the proceedings dated 19.11.2008 on the file of the first respondent, whereby the petitioner was deprived of his right to sign the cheque jointly with the President of the Village Panchayat. Factual Matrix 2. The petitioner is the Vice President of Muthurangampatti Village Panchayat Council in the District of Karur. As per Section 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat Act') all cheques for payment from village panchayat shall be signed jointly by the President and Vice President. According to the petitioner, he discharged his duties as Vice President in accordance with the provisions of the Panchayat Act, However, the third respondent, who is the President of the Panchayat, made a demand to sign the cheques without the support of the resolution of the Panchayat Council and in respect of certain works, which were not executed. Therefore, there were difference of opinion between the petitioner and the third respondent. 3. While so, the power of the petitioner to sign the cheque was taken away as per the impugned order dated 19.11.2008 without notice to him. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the writ petition. 4. The second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it was indicated that the petitioner was indulged in delaying tactics and he never signed the cheques jointly with the President. Because of the non-cooperation of the petitioner, the panchayat administration came to a standstill, and as such, a meeting of the panchayat was held on 26.9.2008. The petitioner was also invited for the said meeting. In the panchayat meeting held on 26.9.2008, a resolution was passed to withdraw the cheque signing power of the petitioner and to assign the said power to the fourth respondent. The resolution was passed by the majority of the members of the panchayat and the same was forwarded to the second respondent for appropriate action. The second respondent on receipt of the said resolution made his recommendation to the first respondent and accordingly, the impugned order has been passed withdrawing the cheque signing powers of the petitioner. 5. The third respondent has also filed a counter-affidavit, denying the contentions as found mentioned in the affidavit filed in, support of the writ petition. The second respondent on receipt of the said resolution made his recommendation to the first respondent and accordingly, the impugned order has been passed withdrawing the cheque signing powers of the petitioner. 5. The third respondent has also filed a counter-affidavit, denying the contentions as found mentioned in the affidavit filed in, support of the writ petition. According to the third respondent, the notice of the panchayat meeting was served on the petitioner on 19.9.2008 and in the meeting held on 26.9.2008, the petitioner also participated and resolution was passed only in his presence. It was further stated that the intention of the petitioner was only to paralyze the working of the panchayat and as such, the panchayat union was compelled to pass a resolution, denying the petitioner of his right to sign the cheque. In such circumstances, the third respondent justified the order passed by the first respondent. Submissions:- 6. Thiru. B. Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Government have issued an order in G.O. Ms. No. 92, Rural Development (C))(iii) Department, dated 26.3.1997 and as per the said Government Order, in exceptional cases, where there was adversarial relationship between the President and the Vice President, it was permissible for the panchayat by way of a resolution authorizing any other member to operate the account jointly with the President. However, for taking such decision, prior approval of the inspector of Panchayat (District Collector) was absolutely necessary. According to the learned counsel, before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to submit his objection and as such, the very proceeding was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel also relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in (2005) 1 CTC 545 : (2005) 1 MLJ 549 . 7. Thiru K.M.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 contended that the petitioner was very much present during the panchayat meeting held on 26.9.2008 and the decision to divest him of the powers to sign the cheque jointly with the president was taken in his presence and as such, it cannot be contended that the decision was taken without notice to him. As an alternative contention, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that after passing the resolution by the panchayat, the second respondent issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon his attention to the sorry state of affairs in the panchayat, on account of the petitioner's failure to sign the cheque along with the President and wanted the petitioner to submit his reply before sending the letter of recommendation to the Collector to approve the resolution passed by the panchayat. However, there was no reply to the said notice and as such, the second respondent was justified in recommending the matter to the first respondent. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the notice issued by the second respondent has to be construed to be a notice issued by the first respondent before passing the impugned order and as such, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. Thiru N. Shanmugaselvam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent justified the decision taken by the first respondent, as according to him, it was only to avoid a deadlock in the panchayat on account of the refusal of the petitioner to sign the cheque along with the President that the first respondent was compelled to take a decision divesting the petitioner of his powers to sign the cheque. Analysis 9. The petitioner is the elected Vice President of Muthurangampatti Village. The election of Vice President to the village panchayat is in accordance with Section 44 of the Tamil Madu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 10. Section 188(3) of the Act empowers the Vice President to sign the cheque jointly with the President. Therefore, the Vice President was given certain powers in the administration of the village panchayat and the same could be taken away only in the manner known to law. 11. The Constitution of the three tier system of the Panchayat was made on account of the constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992, which inserted part-IX of the Constitution in the present form. Article 40 of the Constitution mandates the States to organise village panchayats and to endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-Government. It was with such a good intention, Part-IX of the Constitution was inserted by way of the 73rd Amendment Act, 1992. Article 40 of the Constitution mandates the States to organise village panchayats and to endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-Government. It was with such a good intention, Part-IX of the Constitution was inserted by way of the 73rd Amendment Act, 1992. The insertion of part-1X to the Constitution effected a sea change in the panchayat administration. The Panchayats have become local self-Government with a fixed tenure. Provisions were also made for election of members of panchayat directly by the people of the panchayat, devolution of powers and responsibilities, management of finance and all other requirements for an effective functioning of the local self-Government. The Constitution of a village panchayat in a three tier system was evolved with a view to give participation to the villagers in the administration of their respective panchayats. 12. The creation of Panchayat Council, as provided by the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 was only on account of the mandate given by Artlcle-243(B) of the Constitution. The preamble to the Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1994 clearly shows that the Act was intended to give greater participation of the people so as to make them institutions of self-Government and for more effective implementation of rural developmental programmes. G.O. 92 13. The Government have issued the order in G.O. Ms. No. 92, Rural Development(C)(iii) Department, dated 26.3.1997 to revise the existing accounting procedure in the context of formation of the three tier panchayat administration, Annexure (i) to the said Government Order provides that all the accounts of the panchayat should be jointly operated by the President and the Vice President. However, in exceptional cases, where there was adversarial relationship between the President and the Vice President, the panchayat may, by a resolution, authorize any other member other than the Vice President to jointly operate the account along with the President with the prior approval of the Inspector of Panchayat. Statutory Provision 14. The Panchayat Act also makes provision for the removal of the President as well as the Vice President, Section 205 of the Act deals with removal of the President and Section 206 of the Act provides for removal of the Vice President. Section 206 of the Act would read thus:- "206. Statutory Provision 14. The Panchayat Act also makes provision for the removal of the President as well as the Vice President, Section 205 of the Act deals with removal of the President and Section 206 of the Act provides for removal of the Vice President. Section 206 of the Act would read thus:- "206. Removal of Vice President (1) If in the opinion of the inspector, the vice-president wilfully omits or refuses to carry out or disobeys any provisions 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 vice-president to offer within a specified date, his explanation with respect to his cases of omission or commission mentioned in the notice. (2) The provisions of sub-sections (2) to (13) (both inclusive) of Section 205 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to, the removal of the vice-president as they apply in relation to the removal of the president by the Inspector on his own motion." 15. As per Section 206(2) of the Act, the procedure for the removal of President as found in 205 (2) to (13) has to be followed for the purpose removal of the Vice President. Therefore, it is evident that before the removal of a Vice President, the views of the village panchayat shall be taken and it was only after calling for the explanation, an order could be passed under Section 206 of the Act to remove the Vice President. 16. When there is a provision to remove the Vice President on account of his refusal to carry out any of the functions of the Vice President or due to disobeying the provisions of the Panchayat Act or on allegation of abuse of his powers as the Vice President, with notice to him, the said procedure has to be substantially complied with, while divesting the Vice President of his powers to sign the cheque as conferred on him under Section 188(3) of the Act. 17. The power of the Vice President to sign the cheque is a statutory power conferred on him under Section 188(3) of the Act. Such a power cannot be taken away by way of an executive act. 17. The power of the Vice President to sign the cheque is a statutory power conferred on him under Section 188(3) of the Act. Such a power cannot be taken away by way of an executive act. Therefore, while taking action to divest the Vice President of his powers to sign the cheque, the procedure as contemplated under Section 206 of the Act, has to be complied with. The order divesting the Vice President of his powers to sign the cheque jointly with the President involves civil consequence to him and his administrative powers would be taken away on account of such orders. 18. Even though the Panchayat was within its powers to authorise any other member other than the Vice President to operate the account jointly with the President, when there was adversarial relationship between the President and the Vice President, the prior approval of the Inspector of Panchayat was mandatory. The idea behind granting such power to the panchayat to tide other the difficulty caused on account of the strained relationship between the President and the Vice President and for a smooth administration of the panchayat. The Collector, being the Inspector of Panchayat, was given the powers to consider the resolution passed by the panchayat in the matter of divesting the cheque signing powers of the Vice President and entrusting such powers to a member of panchayat. Therefore, the District Collector has got a say in the matter. The grant of prior approval is not an empty formality. 19. The prior approval as found in the annexure (1) to the Government order in G.O. Ms. No. 92, Rural Development (C)(iii) Department, dated 26.3.1997 is not for introducing the resolution in the panchayat meeting. It would be open to the panchayat to convene a meeting, in the event of the failure of the Vice President to sign the cheque along with the President. There was no necessity for a prior permission from the Collector to convene the meeting. It was well within the powers of the panchayat Council to take a decision divesting the Vice President of his right to sign the cheque jointly with the President and to grant such a right to a member of the panchayat so as to enable the grantee to sign the cheque along with the President. It was well within the powers of the panchayat Council to take a decision divesting the Vice President of his right to sign the cheque jointly with the President and to grant such a right to a member of the panchayat so as to enable the grantee to sign the cheque along with the President. However, for the purpose of executing the resolution of the panchayat, prior approval of the Inspector is a mandatory requirement. 20. The resolution of the village panchayat has to be submitted to the District Collector, on receipt of such a requisition from the Council along with a resolution, the Collector is obliged to issue notice to the Vice President. There was no requirement of conducting full-fledged enquiry by the Collector in such matters, as it would defeat the very purpose of passing the resolution. The need for such a resolution was only to tide over the situation caused on account of the strained relationship between the President and the Vice President and in case the Collector was expected to conduct a detailed enquiry with an opportunity of hearing to the Vice President, it would cause delay and the working of the panchayat would be jeopardised. However, before giving approval to the resolution, the Collector should observe the minimum principles of natural justice. The Vice President should be put on notice about the resolution passed by the panchayat. The fact that the Vice President also attended the meeting would make no difference, as the Collector, being a statutory authority, has to function without any kind of bias. The Vice President has to be given a reasonable opportunity to submit his explanation before passing orders by the Collector. 21. The statute as well as the Government Order nowhere prescribes the procedure of issuing notice by the Block Development Officer before submitting his recommendation to the Collector for the approval of the panchayat resolution. Therefore, the notice issued by the Block Development Officer has no consequence. The authority to approve the resolution of the panchayat Council is only the Collector and as such, the notice should be issued by the Collector himself. There was no delegation of his function by the Collector and as such, the notice issued by the Block Development Officer cannot be construed to be a notice issued by the Collector. 22. The authority to approve the resolution of the panchayat Council is only the Collector and as such, the notice should be issued by the Collector himself. There was no delegation of his function by the Collector and as such, the notice issued by the Block Development Officer cannot be construed to be a notice issued by the Collector. 22. The learned Additional Government Pleader also contended that even after the receipt of the notice from the second respondent, the petitioner has not co-operated with the President and he did not sign the cheques. There is no merit in the said contention, inasmuch as the panchayat has already taken a decision on 26.9.2008 to divest the Vice President of his powers to sign the cheque along with the President. The second respondent has sent the notice on 8.10.2008. The said notice has no consequence, as the petitioner has no authority to sign the cheque, subsequent to the decision taken by the panchayat Council on 26.9.2008. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that even after the issuance of notice by the second respondent on 8.10.2008, the petitioner did not mend his ways and he continued to be arrogant, without assisting the panchayat in their smooth administration. 23. There is no dispute in this case that before passing the impugned order by the Collector, no notice was issued to the petitioner. The said fact was confirmed by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents also. 24. The procedure to be adopted before granting approval to the panchayat to operate the account, otherwise than with the participation of the Vice President, with reference to G.O. Ms. No. 92, Rural Development(C)(iii) Department, dated 26.3.1997 was considered by the Division Bench in Pugashendran v. B.G. Balu (supra) and on a critical analysis of the Government Order, the Division Bench concurred with the opinion rendered by the learned single Judge to the effect that before granting prior approval to the resolution of the village panchayat, the District Collector has to give notice to the Vice President with an opportunity of hearing. The Division Bench observed thus at pp. 554 to 558 of MLJ: "14. The Division Bench observed thus at pp. 554 to 558 of MLJ: "14. We agree with the learned single Judge that before granting prior approval to the resolution of the Village Panchayat authorizing any other member to operate the account along with the President, as provided by G.O. Ms. No.92, Rural Development (C.III) Department dated 26.3.1997, the Inspector of Panchayats (District Collector) has to give a notice to the Vice President and an opportunity of hearing to him. Such hearing need not be a personal hearing and he can only be given a show cause notice asking him to give a reply to the allegations in the show cause notice within a reasonable period. In our opinion, such a procedure would comply with the principles of natural justice, and it is not necessary that the Vice-President must be allowed to appear in person along with his counsel, witnesses, 15. ………….. 16. ………….. 17. ………….. 18. ………….. 19. ………….. 20. ………….. 21. ………….. 22. ………….. 23. ………….. 24. ………….. 25. ………….. 26. ………….. 27. We would however point out that before granting prior approval, it would be the duty of the inspector of Panchayats (District Collector) to give a hearing to the Vice-President or (President, as the case may be) (which need not be a personal hearing as already mentioned above), and apply his mind and decide by a written order giving reasons as to whether in his opinion, the Vice-President (or President, as the case may be) is refusing to sign the cheque for ulterior motive, or for genuine reasons in the interest of the village panchayat. It will be the duty of the Inspector of Panchayats, to decide this matter objectively and impartially without being influenced by any extraneous pressures or considerations. If the refusal to sign the cheques is for good and genuine reasons in the interest of the Village Panchayat, the Inspector should refuse approval, but if it is for extraneous considerations or is mala fide he should grant it." 25. The petitioner and the third respondent are functionaries of the panchayat. Their motive and intention should be to serve the people of the panchayat. Parliament has amended the constitution and inserted part-IX by way of constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992 only with a view to make the institutions of self-Government more effective. The petitioner and the third respondent are functionaries of the panchayat. Their motive and intention should be to serve the people of the panchayat. Parliament has amended the constitution and inserted part-IX by way of constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992 only with a view to make the institutions of self-Government more effective. Unless the villages are made self-sufficient, it would be impossible for the nation to develop. In case the statutory functionaries, like the petitioner and the third respondent themselves fight in the name of their office as well as their rights, it really projects a sorry state of affairs. The ultimate authority is the village people and the petitioner and the members of the Panchayat Council are accountable and answerable to the villagers. The petitioner and the third respondent should realize that they have been assigned their respective duties only for the betterment as well as in the interest of the villagers. They should discharge their functions with a social outlook. These unwanted litigations would hamper, the developmental activities of the Panchayat and as such, both the petitioner and respondents should bury their differences in the interest of the Panchayat. 26. The order impugned in the writ petition is, therefore, liable to be set aside only on the ground of failure to observe the principles of natural justice. 27. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.11.2008 on the file of the first respondent is quashed and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent is, directed to issue notice to the petitioner enclosing a copy of the resolution passed by the third respondent panchayat divesting the petitioner of his powers to sign the cheque jointly with the President and a reasonable time should be given to submit his objection. The objection submitted by the petitioner should be considered by the first respondent and a speaking order should be passed. Since the resolution of the Council was passed as early as on 26.9.2008 and the impugned order was also passed long back, the first respondent is directed to take up the matter as expeditiously as possible and to dispose of the same on merits and as per law. 28. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Ordered accordingly.