JUDGMENT V. DHANAPALAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.R. Subramanian, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C. Selvaraj, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent. 2. What is challenged in this writ petition is a resolution passed by Pottapalayam Village Panchayat, in Resolution No. 160, dated 07.08.2013. Seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the second respondent not to prevent the proposed construction of koil in that Panchayat in S.No. 158/29, to the extent of 0.00.85 ares and in S.No. 158/30, to the extent of 0.00.87 ares, the petitioner has come before this Court. 3. The Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1997, under Section 202, contemplates that in order to suspend or cancel a resolution, under the Act, it may be moved before the Inspector of Panchayats and he by order in writing, suspend or cancel any resolution passed, order issued, or licence or permission granted, or, to prohibit the doing of any act which is about to be done or is being done, in pursuance or under colour of this Act, if in his opinion, (a) such resolution, order, licence, permission or act has not been legally passed, issued, granted or authorised, or (b) such resolution, order, licence, permission or act is in excess of the powers conferred by this Act or any other law or an abuse of such powers or is considered by the Inspector to be otherwise undesirable, or (c) the execution of such resolution or order, or the continuance in force of such licence or permission or the doing of such act is likely to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or is likely to lead to a riot or an affray, provided that nothing in this sub-section shall enable the Inspector to set aside any election which has been held. 4. The petitioner's grievance appears that the lands in Survey Numbers in question as prayed for in the prayer as to the resolution concerned of the Pottapalayam Village Panchayat, are vacant lands used by the legal heirs of the petitioner and they are Natham poramboke lands shown as house sites in the said village. In the year 2002, the village people have proposed to construct Sri Sevuga Perumal Thirukovil at the village. In the year 2002, the village people have proposed to construct Sri Sevuga Perumal Thirukovil at the village. Thereafter, the people started construction in the survey lands to the extent of 5 cents and subsequently, the village people have formed a Thirukovil Committee and passed a resolution for the purpose of constructing the temple. The construction expenses and articles have been collected from the village people. 5. While so, the house sites allotted to the village people in the year 1991 by the first respondent under the scheme of free house sites to the Scheduled Castes. The said lands are sub-divided by the second respondent separately and given survey numbers. The survey lands are vacant and there was no construction in all the house sites. The village people decided to construct the temple in the above lands. 6. In the meanwhile, the fourth respondent passed the Resolution No. 160, dated 07.08.2013, deciding to construct a Panchayat Service Centre, which is impugned in this writ petition and therefore, this has resulted in disturbing the entire situation, particularly, preventing the construction of the temple in their lands. In this regard, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the second respondent on 04.06.2014 and also sent a legal notice to the first respondent on 26.05.2014. Since there was no action thereon, the petitioner having decided to challenge the impugned resolution, prayed for the above relief. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent. 8. The facts leading to the issue in question is concerned with a land which has been claimed by the petitioner for construction of a temple. On the other hand, the fourth respondent Panchayat has taken a decision to set up a Panchayat Service Centre. If that could be the position, the controlling authority being the Inspector of Panchayats, is having the power to suspend or cancel a resolution under the Act and is empowered to take any decision in this regard after looking into the issue. Though the petitioner has an effective remedy under the Act, he has not exhausted the same and come before this Court praying for quashing of that resolution invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Though the petitioner has an effective remedy under the Act, he has not exhausted the same and come before this Court praying for quashing of that resolution invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In our opinion, the approach made by the petitioner is not correct and on the other hand, he has to move the concerned authority for redressal of his grievance. 10. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition, with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Inspector of Panchayats/District Collector for redressal of his grievance, by virtue of his representation dated 04.06.2014, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and contest the matter. In that event, it is for the first respondent, District Collector, to take note of the entire facts and issue notice to all the parties concerned and proceed further in accordance with the provisions as contemplated under Section 202 of the Act. No costs.