The court clarified that any divestment of cheque signing power must adhere to procedural fairness and compliance with relevant statutory provisions.

1. Heard Mr. M. R. Elavarasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. A. S. Senthilvel, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. Perused the materials filed in support of the petition and also the counter affidavit filed by the learned Additional Government Pleader.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from authorizing the fourth respondent to sign the cheque of 3rd respondent in his place and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to permit him to sign in the Panchayat Cheques of President of R. Gopinathampatti Panchayat Morappur Union Harur Taluk Dharmapuri District forthwith.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was elected as Vice President of R. Gopinathampatti Village Panchayat during October 2011. According to the petitioner, the President of the Village Panchayat has committed several irregularities and as a result of which the petitioner had to point out the same to the Ponneri Panchayat President and hence the petitioner refused to sign the cheques since the cheques which were given by the President was unfilled blank cheques forcing the petitioner to sign unfilled cheques and documents as per his whims and fancies. In the typed set of papers copy of the undersigned blank cheque bearing No. 414497 drawn on Pallavan Grama Bank has been enclosed. In the background of these facts, without issuing any notice to the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner is refusing to sign the Panchayat, the said power has been assigned to the fifth Ward Member viz., Ramalingam. After the demise of the said Ramalingam on 05-06-2014, the petitioner has requested the cheque signing power to be restored in his name.

4. When the case came up for hearing on the previous occasion, this Court directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to get instructions as to whether any notice was issued or whether any procedure was followed by the District Collector, the first respondent herein, divesting the petitioner from the cheque signing power. Further this Court directed the original files to be produced before this Court. On a perusal of the files it is seen that the cheque signing power has been divested from the petitioner without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. In fact, this question was considered by this Court in the case of P.K. Suresh v. The District Collector / Inspector of Panchayats in W.P. No. 21687 and 24075 of 2014 wherein the order divesting the cheque signing power of the President was quashed. The said decision was rendered following the decision of the Honourable Division Bench. At this stage it is worthwhile to quote the relevant paragraph of the said judgment:
'The procedure to be adopted by the President and the Members of the Panchayat as well as the Inspector of Panchayat in divesting the Vice President's power to be a co - signatory of the Panchayat's cheques came up for consideration before the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in the case of Pugazhendran v. B. G. Balu in W.A. No. 1799 of 2004, dated 28.01.2005. The controversy in the said case was regarding the interpretation of S.188(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats, 1994, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). In terms of sub-section (3) of S.188 of the Act, all cheques for payment from the Village Panchayat Fund or other funds constituted under sub-section (2) have to be signed jointly by the President and Vice President and in the absence of the President or Vice President, as the case may be, by the Vice - President or President and another member auth