Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 2. The petitioner has stated that he is the Vice President of Kabilar Kurichi Panchayat. As such, he has been discharging his duties to the best of his abilities, without any blemish. 3. The petitioner has further stated that the cheque signing power has been vested in the petitioner, under Section 188 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. He has been cooperating, fully, with the President of the panchayat, in conducting its affairs, including the signing of cheques, for carrying on the various developmental activities of the panchayat, by utilising the funds allotted to the panchayat. 4. While so, in the month of October, 2009, it was learnt that the President of the panchayat was found to be guilty of misappropriation of the panchayat funds. Therefore, the petitioner had raised a protest against such misuse of funds of the panchayat, by refusing to sign the cheques. The petitioner had also made several complaints to the first and the second respondents, with regard to the malpractices of the President, who is the third respondent herein. 5. It has also been stated that, on 30.10.2009, Resolution Nos.27 and 28 were proposed to be passed by the panchayat to cancel the cheque signing power vested in the petitioner and to confer the said power on the fourth respondent, who is a member of the panchayat. The said resolutions had been passed in the meeting of the panchayat, with the support of the persons, who were supporting the third respondent in her misdeeds. Thereafter, the resolutions had been forwarded to the first respondent, for his approval. The first respondent had approved the proposals, by his impugned proceedings, in Na.Ka.No.2873/2009/RA3, signed on 12.11.2009, which has been impugned in the present writ petition. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent had passed the impugned proceedings, without issuing a notice to the petitioner and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. The cheque signing power of the petitioner is statutory in nature, as per Section 188 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. As such, it is not open to the first respondent to take it away, without following the procedures established by law. The cheque signing power of the petitioner is statutory in nature, as per Section 188 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. As such, it is not open to the first respondent to take it away, without following the procedures established by law. The first respondent ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as per the order passed by this Court in K.Valarmathi V. The District Collector, Coimbatore District and others (2006-2- L.W. 19). 7. A Division Bench of this Court, in Pugazhendran V. B.G.Balu ( 2005(1) CTC 545 ), had also held that the failure on the part of the District Collector in issuing a notice before canceling the cheque signing power of the appellant therein, who was the President of Brahmapuram Village Panchayat, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District, was bad in law, as it was in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. Even though the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first and the second respondents had denied the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, he has not been in a position to show that the first respondent had issued a prior notice to the petitioner, before the impugned proceedings had been passed. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, and in view of the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated Nil.11.2009, in Na.Ka.No.2873/2009/RA3, signed on 12.11.2009, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first and the second respondents has not been in a position to show that a prior notice had been issued to the petitioner, before the impugned proceedings had been passed. Further, no serious allegations of misappropriation or fraud have been alleged against the petitioner. 10. The main allegation against the petitioner is that he has not been cooperating with the President of Kabilar Kurichi Panchayat, in signing the cheques relating to the funds of the panchayat. Further, no serious allegations of misappropriation or fraud have been alleged against the petitioner. 10. The main allegation against the petitioner is that he has not been cooperating with the President of Kabilar Kurichi Panchayat, in signing the cheques relating to the funds of the panchayat. Since, the petitioner, is a democratically elected representative of the people of the panchayat and as he has been vested with the cheque signing power, as per Section 188 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the first respondent ought to have issued a notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned proceedings. Thus, it is clear that the impugned proceedings have been passed, in violation of the principles of natural justice. As such, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent is liable to be set aside and therefore, it is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. However, it is made clear that it is open to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, with regard to the cheque signing power vested in the petitioner, after due notice and after giving him an opportunity of hearing. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.