ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No. 1910/2014/A4 dated 22.08.2014 passed by the third respondent, quash the same and directing the third respondent to allow the petitioner to give cheque signing power in R.Kombai Village Panchayat, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District. By the said order, dated 22.08.2014, the cheque signing power of the petitioner has been taken by the Inspector of Panchayat / the District Collector and the same was handed over to the 7th Ward Member of the same Panchayat. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the 3rd Ward Member of R.Kombai Village Panchayat and subsequently, he was appointed as Vice President of the said Panchayat. The fourth respondent herein is the President of the said Panchayat. In the said Panchayat, various welfare schemes have been implemented by the Central and State Governments. During the year 2011 to 2014, while allotting houses to the poor people, it came to light that some irregularities have been committed in the Panchayat. In view of that, the fourth respondent was expelled from the post of President. 2.1. While the situation stood thus, the Panchayat Board spent Rs.6,00,000/-for putting up street light in the said Panchayat. However, in reality, the street lights have not been installed. Therefore, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P. (MD).No.9032 of 2014 to initiate action against the Panchayat Board President and the same is pending consideration before this Court. 2.2. Under this backtrap, the Block Development Officer, Kujiliamparai, Dindigul District, issued a memo to the petitioner to call for explanation on 30.07.2014 stating that among the 12 members, 10 members have passed a resolution dated 11.07.2014 against the petitioner. Immediately, on 23.07.2014, the petitioner submitted an explanation to the said Block Development Officer. While so, on 05.08.2014, the Assistant Director of Panchayat called for an explanation from the petitioner, for which, the petitioner also submitted an explanation on 13.02.2014. On receipt of the explanation, the third respondent issued an impugned order stating that the cheque signing power was taken away and it was handed over to the 7th Ward Member of the same Panchayat. 3. On receipt of the explanation, the third respondent issued an impugned order stating that the cheque signing power was taken away and it was handed over to the 7th Ward Member of the same Panchayat. 3. The Inspector of Panchayat / District Collector, Dindigul District has filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that the petitioner is taking inordinate delay in signing the cheque in view of adversial relationship between the petitioner as well as the Panchayat President. After conducting an enquiry and on the basis of the resolution passed by the 10 Members dated 10.07.2014 and 11.07.2014, except the petitioner and the third ward Member, the District Collector felt that action need be taken against the petitioner. Further, the third respondent through the Assistant Director of Rural Development (Panchayats) Dindigul has conducted an enquiry on 13.08.2014 for which the petitioner also submitted a written explanation. The third respondent, before passing the orders, withdrawing the co-signature power from the petitioner, has given an opportunity to the petitioner to prove his innocence. However, the facts proved otherwise. Therefore, as per the power vested with the District Collector vide G.O.Ms.No.92, Rural Development (C.III) department dated 26.03.1997, the third respondent has taken action against the petitioner for the betterment of the Panchayat. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition. 4. When the matter is taken-up for consideration, it is the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is against the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that it is the petitioner who unearthed the irregularities of the Panchayat, however, the situation turned against the petitioner. In a number of occasions, this Court has held that the District Collector cannot act as an extra-constitutional authority over democratically elected President and Vice President for the simple reason that the power to sign cheque is a statutory power conferred on the President and Vice President under sub-section (3) of Section 188 of the Act. The reason for being given financial powers to the Panchayat concerned is that the Constitution and the Panchayat Act wanted to give financial powers to the local body and it was only for the said purpose, the legislature has vested the Executive Authority on the Panchayat. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law and it is liable to be quashed. 4. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law and it is liable to be quashed. 4. The learned Government Advocate was put on notice, who in turn submitted that since the welfare Schemes are one of the important functions of the Panchayat and the petitioner was arrested by the Anti- Vigilance Department, the first respondent has no other option but to invoke his power under the Panchayat Act by taking away the cheque signing power of the petitioner. The said action is also taken in tune with the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. Further, as per the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, if the petitioner is aggrieved, he has to file a Revision before the Government. Therefore, there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioner and this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the Inspector of Panchayat / District Collector has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, to which, the petitioner has submitted an explanation and thereafter, the Inspector of Panchayat has taken away cheque signing power of the petitioner as per the power vested vide G.O.Ms.No.146, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 17.08.2007. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the District Collector has followed the rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. Further, in the case on hand, a useful reference could be made in an unreported judgment made in W.P.(MD).No. 9378 of 2011 dated 21.04.2011, wherein, in paragraph Nos.8 to 10, it is held as follows:- “8. In the present case, in view of the allegations against the President of the Village Panchayat supported by reasons, the cheque signing power alone has been taken away as an interim measure. 9. The exercise of such power is well within the power of the Inspector of Panchayats under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. This Court finds no infirmity in the power exercised by the Collector, the Inspector of Panchayats, in accordance with Section 203 of the Act. The challenge to the said order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, therefore, fails. 10. This Court finds no infirmity in the power exercised by the Collector, the Inspector of Panchayats, in accordance with Section 203 of the Act. The challenge to the said order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, therefore, fails. 10. As pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, insofar as the factual aspect of this case is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to file a Revision under Section 219 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, before the Government and ventilate his grievance as per the said provision.” 7. In view of the categorical findings, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned in this Writ Petition. If the petitioner is still aggrieved by the order impugned in this Writ Petition, he has to work out his remedy under Section 219 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. On many occasions, this Court as well as the Apex Court has held that the alternative remedy cannot be bye-passed by way of a Writ Petition. Without exhausting such remedy, this Writ Petition cannot be entertained. Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a Revision under Section 219 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, before the Government to air his grievance. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.