Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the order passed by the first respondent in order dated 28.06.2012 in reference No.Na.Ka.2731/2012/A2 and quash the same. 2. Despite the advocates boycott of the Court, Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned counsel appears for the petitioner. Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Government Advocate appears for the respondents. 3. Petitioner is a 25 year old lady. She has studied upto 8th standard. In view of the policy of the Government to give proportionate and effective representation to women and to encourage them in participation of panchayat administration, the panchayat in question was reserved for women. The petitioner contested in the election to the post of President of Keel Kachirapattu Village, Thiruvannamalai District and she was elected. According to her, this is the first time she is occupying the post as a President. She is young in age and has no previous experience and unaware of procedural aspects. As an elected President, there was no training given in the conduct of the affairs of the panchayat and that has caused her the present difficulty. The petitioner had to depend on the clerical staff who had put in large number of years of service for conduct of the day-to-day affairs and for upkeep of records. In the conduct of the affairs of the panchayat, it appears that in respect of certain development and maintenance work, a complaint was lodged by the panchayat Assistant to the District Collector and the Commissioner Rural Development, Chennai alleging certain irregularities against the petitioner President in execution of work. It is alleged that petitioner did not follow the procedure prescribed in recording the nature of work done and payment made. In this regard, pending contemplation of action, the District Collector issued a show-cause notice setting out three charges for taking action under Section 203 of the Panchayat Act. The petitioner gave a detailed reply stating that she is the first time President not aware of the procedure prescribed and the Panchayat Assistant who has supposed to guide the President did not co-operate with the President in the execution works. On the contrary the Panchayat Assistant has chosen to give the complaint as if the petitioner has deliberately violated the provisions of law. On the contrary the Panchayat Assistant has chosen to give the complaint as if the petitioner has deliberately violated the provisions of law. According to the petitioner, the issue for which charges are made relates to maintenance work for the welfare of the public of the panchayat. The payments are meagre as it is relatable of replacement and repair which is a routine affair and should be recorded in the registers by the clerk and that is the nature of his duties. Having failed to do so, he has preferred the complaint. 4. It is also the statement of the petitioner that the charge No.2 relates to a purchase of street lights and according to the petitioner that is an emergency requirement for public purpose. Insofar as the third charge is concerned, there was an acute water shortage and, therefore, to augment water the existing bore well was flushed as an emergency measures. The funds of the panchayat were utilised for the above as there was public outcry for water. Since the head under which it should be accounted for was not properly known to the petitioner being a new incumbent to the post and in view of the fact that the Panchayat Assistant did not cooperate with the petitioner the error had crept in. The said error was subsequently corrected at the appropriate time. Petitioner further pleads that due to lack of proper education, being a first time President and a lady not experienced in the conduct of the affairs of the panchayat these mistakes have crept in and that should not be viewed seriously for taking such an extreme step. Further, the petitioner has taken developmental work and has not done anything to the detriment of the panchayat and the people. 5. Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act mandates the authority to do certain work if the President does not do the same. There is nothing in the complaint to show that the petitioner has abstained or failed to do acts beneficial to the panchayat. On the contrary the allegations are mostly relating to procedural matters for which appropriate explanation will be given and the Collector should be asked to reconsider the issue on merits afresh. 6. Heard Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. On the contrary the allegations are mostly relating to procedural matters for which appropriate explanation will be given and the Collector should be asked to reconsider the issue on merits afresh. 6. Heard Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. Two Deputy Block Development Officers of the panchayat relating to the said panchayat are present in court and they have instructed the Special Government Pleader. 7. The Special Government Pleader relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in P.Suganthi - vs. - The District Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayats, Thoothukudi District reported in 2011(2) CTC 381 and myself in S.Perumal, President, Managalam Village Panchayat, Thurinjapuram Panchayat Union, Thiruvannamalai District. - vs. - The District Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayats, reported in 2011(3) CTC 869 , pointed out that it is a case of exercise of power under Section 203 of the Tamil nadu Panchayat Act temporarily restraining the President from signing the cheque pending contemplation of further action. Such power is vested with the Collector. That position is not in dispute. 8. However, considering the nature of grievance expressed by the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that the writ petitioner, a first time lady panchayat President, the factual aspect of the case as pointed out above requires in depth consideration by the Collector as to whether the petitioner had deliberately and intentionally violated the provisions of the Panchayat Act and the Rules warranting the action as above. If it is a case of misappropriation, then it can be dealt with differently, but it does not appear so from what is on record before this Court for the present. This Court has also held in the above decision that the exercise of power under Section 203 is a temporary measure. Therefore, the authority has the power to review the same if relevant material is brought to fore and explained. In this case the prima facie case pleaded by the petitioner requires a detailed consideration by the Collector. 9. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is given liberty to make a proper and detailed representation to the District Collector through proper channel expressing her grievance as above, seeking for revocation of the order passed under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. 9. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is given liberty to make a proper and detailed representation to the District Collector through proper channel expressing her grievance as above, seeking for revocation of the order passed under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. As and when such an application is made, the District Collector is directed to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the application when present along with a copy of this order. 10. There are many instance, like the one before this Court where lady elected representatives flounder due to lack of knowledge and awareness of panchayat proceedings. It is desirable that the Director of Rural Development and the District Collector concerned take necessary steps to conduct a refresher course to the newly elected Presidents as to the way in which the affairs of the panchayat should be conducted and the procedure to be followed in the conduct of the day-to-day affairs of the panchayat. Such a refresher course or training imparted to the Presidents of the Panchayat, who are by and large not fully literate, will ensure that such errors and mistakes can be avoided. 11. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.