Court Invalidates Jurisdiction of Show Cause Notices Under Telangana Panchayat Raj Act

The court held that the 1st Respondent lacked jurisdiction to issue show cause notices to the Upa-Sarpanch and Ward Members under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. The notices were set aside as they were found to be without jurisdiction. The court emphasized the need to follow the prescribed statutory procedures for removal and highlighted the availability of alternative remedies under the Act. The show cause notice issued to the Sarpanch was deemed valid, and the court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Sarpanch.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the 1st Respondent to issue show cause notices to Upa-Sarpanch and Ward Members.
2. Procedure for removal of Upa-Sarpanch and Ward Members.
3. Validity of the show cause notice issued to the Sarpanch.
4. Availability of alternative remedies.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the 1st Respondent to issue show cause notices to Upa-Sarpanch and Ward Members:
The petitioners contended that the 1st Respondent lacked jurisdiction to issue show cause notices to the Upa-Sarpanch and Ward Members under Section 37(5) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. The Act provides a procedure for moving a no-confidence motion against the Upa-Sarpanch, but does not empower the 1st Respondent to remove them via show cause notices. The court agreed, noting that Section 37(5) pertains only to the removal of Sarpanch and does not include Upa-Sarpanch or Ward Members. Therefore, the show cause notices issued to the Upa-Sarpanch and Ward Members were without jurisdiction and were set aside.

2. Procedure for removal of Upa-Sarpanch and Ward Members:
The court highlighted that the Act specifies a distinct procedure for the removal of Upa-Sarpanch through a no-confidence motion under Section 30. The Act does not provide a mechanism for the 1st Respondent to remove Upa-Sarpanch and Ward Members directly. The court emphasized that the removal process for Upa-Sarpanch and Ward Members must follow the prescribed statutory procedure, which was not adhered to in this case.

3. Validity of the show cause notice issued to the Sarpanch:
The court examined whether the 1st Respondent had properly formed an opinion before issuing the show cause notice to the Sarpanch. The 1st Respondent had based his decision on complaints from the 5th Respondent and villagers, as well as a report from the 3rd Respondent. The court ruled that the 1st Respondent had acted within his jurisdiction and had sufficient material to form an opinion. Therefore, the show cause notice issued to the Sarpanch was found to be valid and not liable to be set aside.

4. Availability of alternative remedies:
The court noted that the petitioners had an alternative remedy available under the Act. Specifically, an appeal could be filed to the Gram Panchayat Tribunal against any order of removal by the District Collector. The court emphasized that the petitioners should have availed themselves of this remedy instead of directly filing writ petitions. The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Sarpanch on this ground, underscoring the importance of following the statutory appeal process.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petitions filed by the Upa-Sarpanch and Ward Members, setting aside the impugned show cause notices due to lack of jurisdiction. However, the writ petition filed by the Sarpanch was dismissed, as the show cause notice was found to be valid and the petitioner had an alternative remedy available under the Act. The court reiterated the necessity of adhering to the prescribed statutory procedures for removal and the importance of availing alternative remedies before approaching the court.

---