Statutory jurisdiction under local governance law cannot be extended by implication; valid notice needs relevant material and applied mind.

The Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 was read as distinguishing the Sarpanch from the Upa-Sarpanch and Ward Members, and the removal or suspension power in Section 37(5) was confined to the Sarpanch alone. Because no provision authorised action against the Upa-Sarpanch and Ward Members under that provision, notices issued to them were without jurisdiction. For the Sarpanch, the Court noted that Section 37(5) requires an opinion based on relevant material and application of mind; reliance on complaints and a report, with specific charges framed, satisfied that threshold. The notice to the Sarpanch was therefore not shown to be illegal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the District Collector had jurisdiction under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 to issue show cause notices to the Upa-Sarpanch and Ward Members; (ii) Whether the show cause notice issued to the Sarpanch was vitiated for want of independent satisfaction or non-application of mind.

Issue (i): Whether the District Collector had jurisdiction under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 to issue show cause notices to the Upa-Sarpanch and Ward Members.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes the office of Sarpanch from that of Upa-Sarpanch and Ward Members. Section 37(5) deals with suspension and removal of a Sarpanch alone. The Act separately provides for election of the Upa-Sarpanch under Section 15 and for a motion of no confidence under Section 30. The Court applied the principle that clear statutory language must be given effect according to its text and context. Since no provision authorises removal proceedings against the Upa-Sarpanch and Ward Members through Section 37(5), the notices issued to them were without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The notices issued to the Upa-Sarpanch and Ward Members were without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice issued to the Sarpanch was vitiated for want of independent satisfaction or non-application of mind.

Analysis: Section 37(5) empowers the District Collector to act on an opinion formed from relevant material that the Sarpanch abused position or failed to carry out lawful orders, and that continued office would be detrimental to the Gram Panchayat or its inhabitants. The record showed that the Collector relied on complaints and a report before framing charges and issuing notice. The Court held that formation of opinion under the provision requires application of mind to relevant material, not a bare or unsupported assertion of satisfaction. The existence of such material and the framing of specific charges satisfied the statutory threshold. An alternative statutory remedy was also available against any eventual order of removal.

Conclusion: The show cause notice issued to the Sarpanch was not illegal or without jurisdiction and was not liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only in relation to the Upa-Sarpanch and Ward Members, while the challenge to the notice issued to the Sarpanch failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute specifically confers removal or suspension power only in relation to a particular office, that power cannot be extended by implication to other elected offices, and a valid notice under a subjective-satisfaction provision must rest on relevant material showing application of mind.

---