Judgment This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, seeking to set aside the order, dated 20.08.2014, in W.P.(MD).No.12162 of 2014. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the litigative status in the writ petition:- 2.1. The short facts, for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are set out hereunder:- The petitioner is the Vice President of Mallapuram Panchayat, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District. She had challenged the proceedings of the respondents therein, dated 23.08.2013 and 27.06.2014, by which, her cheque signing power came to be withdrawn and the same had been entrusted to the fourth respondent, who was a Ward Member. The learned Judge had allowed the said Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, in the simple terms, noting an important aspect that a show cause notice as well as the impugned order had been issued by the respondents therein on the very same day, thereby, violating the procedures established under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994. Finding a major flaw in the orders impugned, the learned Judge quashed the impugned orders of the respondents and restored the cheque signing power of the petitioner therein. Aggrieved over the same, the fourth respondent in the Writ Petition as well as one Kesari, who is the President of Mallapuram Panchayat, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District, have come up with the present Writ Appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is total non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner in exercising the cheque signing power vested with her, due to which, there is total slackness in carrying out the day-today affairs of the Panchayat. As a consequence of this, many welfare activities meant for Mallapuram Panchayat, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District had come to a halt. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondents should be given effect to, in order to carry out the administration of the Panchayat. 4. The learned counsel for the third respondent, more or less, had adopted the arguments of the appellants, and more particularly, he pointed out that the petitioner had not even co-operated in disbursing the salary of the employees of the said Panchayat, which causes a great administrative problem. 5. 4. The learned counsel for the third respondent, more or less, had adopted the arguments of the appellants, and more particularly, he pointed out that the petitioner had not even co-operated in disbursing the salary of the employees of the said Panchayat, which causes a great administrative problem. 5. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the tenor of the impugned order and the show cause notice would disclose the fact that the manner in which the cheque signing power of the petitioner had been withdrawn. There is total and gross violation of principles of natural justice in taking away the cheque signing power vested with the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. He further submitted that when she had questioned the illegal transactions of the President, which had taken place in the Panchayat under the guise of the welfare activities, enraged over the attitude of the Vice President, the impugned orders came to be passed by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned orders were bad in law and accordingly, got quashed by the learned Judge, which need not be interfered by this Court. 6. A perusal of the papers would reveal that the petitioner had signed most of the cheques, barring a few, which according to her, was not in consonance with the procedures established under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. The said fact could be understood in the explanation offered by her, in her letter, dated 05.09.2013. Basically, the allegations of the appellants are that there is total non-cooperation in exercising the cheque signing power, thereby, the administration of the Panchayat could not be run smoothly. No doubt, the President and the Vice President, in a Panchayat, are the important functionaries and if any one of them struck off for some reason or the other, the administration of the Panchayat will be put to peril. Therefore, the unstinted cooperation of the President and the Vice President is very much essential. One of the main aspect to be taken into consideration in this Writ Petition is that, when the petitioner wanted to know the list of beneficiaries for whom the houses to be allotted by the President of Mallapuram Panchayat, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District, curiously, the same was refuted by the Panchayat President for the best reasons known to him. 7. One of the main aspect to be taken into consideration in this Writ Petition is that, when the petitioner wanted to know the list of beneficiaries for whom the houses to be allotted by the President of Mallapuram Panchayat, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District, curiously, the same was refuted by the Panchayat President for the best reasons known to him. 7. The Vice President, being an elected body, is entitled to question the activities taking place in the Panchayat, at the instance of the President. The activities of the Panchayat President, according to the petitioner, is fishy. If the explanation submitted by the petitioner, in her letter dated 05.09.2013, is taken into consideration, it really causes a great concern to us. She has listed out the fraudulent persons for whom the houses are allotted by the President. Armed with ample evidence, though the petitioner had produced the documents against the President of Mallapuram Panchayat, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District, the Inspector of Panchayat, namely, the District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai, instead of conducting an enquiry into the same, had taken away the cheque signing power of the Vice President, namely, A.Malarvizhi, who is the first respondent herein, without any reason. 8. Viewed from any angle, the contentions of the appellants could not be countenanced either in law or on facts. The allegations leveled against the Writ petitioner has not been substantiated before us. Therefore, we are not finding fault with the order of the learned Judge dated 20.08.2014 made in W.P.(MD).No.12162 of 2014. This Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.