ORDER : The Writ Petition has been praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records passed by the District Collector Thoothukudi dated 23.02.2013 and Ooo.N5/1090/2013 dated 23.02.2013 and quash the same as illegal. By the said order, the District Collector, Tuticorin District has ordered that all the cheques of the Panchayat in question should be attested and authorised by the Block Development Officer. 2. The petitioner has averred in his affidavit that he was elected as the President of Meal Tiruchendur Village Panchayat. He has further averred in the affidavit that the petitioner is discharging his duties and enjoyed a good support among the ward members as well as general public. While so, one Leemarose who was working as Block Development Officer of Tiruchendur Panchayat Union caused the Collector to initiate proceedings under Section 205 against several dalit presidents in Thoothukudi District. In this regard, a detailed representation was submitted by the Dalit Panchayat Presidents jointly to the District Collector, Thoothukudi in July 2012. The petitioner is one of the signatories in the said representation. The said Leemarose expressed her opposition to the unveiling of a portrait of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar in the petitioner's office and also declined to take effective steps to implement the resolution of the Village Panchayat for erecting a statute of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar in the said Panchayat. Further, one Anto who is working as Deputy Block Development Officer is in charge of the said Village Panchayat. He is bound to submit periodical monthly reports to the Inspector of Panchayats and copy should be furnished to the Panchayat also. However, he failed to do so and never pointed out any defects and infirmities in the functioning of the Village Panchayat. 3. Under these circumstances, on 22.01.2013, the petitioner was informed by the Assistant Director of Panchayats that he requires production of the Panchayat records. Accordingly, it was submitted through the Panchayat Secretary. Later, the Assistant Director of Village Panchayats failed to return back all the records. When the petitioner expressed his difficulty to manage the affairs of the Panchayat in the absence of records, the Assistant Director of Panchayat refused to respond. On 01.03.2013, in the office of the Block Development Officer, a copy of the proceedings of the District Collector dated 23.02.2013 initiating action under Section 205 was handed over to the petitioner. When the petitioner expressed his difficulty to manage the affairs of the Panchayat in the absence of records, the Assistant Director of Panchayat refused to respond. On 01.03.2013, in the office of the Block Development Officer, a copy of the proceedings of the District Collector dated 23.02.2013 initiating action under Section 205 was handed over to the petitioner. Under the said proceedings, the District Collector has initiated action under Section 205(1)(a) of the Act on the basis of inspection report submitted by the Assistant Director of Panchayats dated 28.01.2013. The District Collector has also invoked his power under Section 203 and had ordered that all the cheques issued by the Panchayat should be attested and authorised by the Block Development Officer. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. It is the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent neither issued a show cause notice nor followed the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994 before passing the impugned order dated 23.02.2013. On this sole ground, the order of the second respondent has no legs to stand. Therefore, he prayed for quashing the order impugned in this Writ Petition. 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, the second respondent has no other option but to invoke his power under the Panchayat Act by taking away the cheque signing power of the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition. 5. I heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 23.02.2013 would throw light on this Court that the petitioner was neither given a show cause notice nor an explanation was obtained from him, before passing the impugned order dated 23.02.2013. Admittedly, based on the report of the third respondent, the District Collector has swung into action by taking away the cheque signing power of the petitioner. This was done without giving a show cause notice to the petitioner. Time and again, this Court has held 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. This was done without giving a show cause notice to the petitioner. Time and again, this Court has held 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, the first respondent should be more cautious in exercising his extraordinary power in the matter of this nature. 7. For the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation to quash the order impugned in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the impugned order in this Writ Petition stands quashed and this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the second respondent is directed to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the petitioner is directed to give his explanation within a period of one week from the date of the said show cause notice. After doing so, the second respondent shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of the explanation of the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.