RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J.

1. This appeal is preferred, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 7260 of 2018 dated 12.3.2018. The 5th respondent herein filed the writ petition seeking a mandamus to declare the order of suspension dated 17.2.2018, passed by the District Collector, Warangal suspending him from the office of Sarpanch of the 4th respondent-Gram Panchayat, as illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice, apart from being mala fide and a colourable exercise of power. By the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of suspension. Aggrieved thereby, the 5th respondent in the writ petition has preferred this appeal. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the 5th respondent-writ petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Alankanipet Gram Panchayat during the general elections held in July, 2013. A complaint in FIR No. 85 of 2017 was lodged against him for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 390, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. He was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued on 15.7.2017 to which the 5th respondent-writ petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 25.7.2017. It is the case of the 5th respondent-writ petitioner that, even without considering his explanation, the order of suspension was passed in August, 2017 suspending him from holding the office of Sarpanch for a period of three months. The 5th respondent-writ petitioner filed WP No. 26646 of 2017 and, by order dated 11.8.2017, the impugned order of suspension was suspended. The authorities were, however, directed to continue the enquiry. Pursuant thereto, the 5th respondent-writ petitioner continued to hold the office of Sarpanch.

2. Thereafter, another show-cause notice dated 12.12.2017 was issued for which the petitioner again submitted a detailed explanation on 20.12.2017. Yet another notice dated 30.1.2018 was issued under Section 249(1) or (6) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short "the Act") asking the petitioner to show-cause why action should not be initiated against him, for placing him under suspension, as he was arrested on the allegation of obstructing the Executive Officer (PR&RD), Nekkonda from discharging his official duties. The 5th respondent-writ petitioner submitted his explanation on 6.2.2018 denying the allegations. However, the impugned order of suspension came to be passed on 17.2.2018 invoking the power under Sections 249(6) and 258 of the Act, questioning which the present writ petition was filed.

3. In the order under appeal the learned Single Judge observed that Section 258 of the Act was narrow and limited in its scope; it only gave such protection as was available to a public servant, in the discharge of his functions, to a Sarpanch; it was a deeming provision, and could not, therefore, be expanded beyond what it was intended to provide; the protection conferred under Section 258 on a Sarpanch is only that of a public servant in the discharge of his duties; it did not bring in either other service benefits or liabilities attached to the service of a public servant; and the District Collector was not vested with the power to suspend the 5th respondent-writ petitioner on the ground that he was in judicial custody. The learned Single Judge observed that, as the action of the District Collector was ultra vires Section 249(6) of the Act, the impugned order was liable to be set aside.

4. The order placing the 5th respondent-writ petitioner under suspension was pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 30.1.2018 which reads thus:

"In the reference 1st cited EO (PR&RD) Nekkonda has submitted report stating that the Upa Sarpanch and Ward Members of Gram Panchayat, Alankanipet Mandal, Nekkonda have lodged a complaint against Sri Idampaka Parakasham, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Alankanipet that he is not taking development works, with