Telangana High Court’s Directive to Remove HYDRAA Commissioner
The Telangana High Court has taken a decisive step by instructing the state government to remove AV Ranganath, an IPS officer serving as the Commissioner of the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Protection Agency (HYDRAA). This decision follows the court’s conclusion that HYDRAA had willfully disobeyed its orders in [Shanta Sriram Constructions Private Limited v AV Ranganthan].
Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti, presiding over the case, emphasized that HYDRAA officials violated a prior undertaking by entering private property with law enforcement and heavy machinery to conduct demolition and fencing operations. Consequently, the court has urged the Telangana Chief Secretary to appoint a new HYDRAA chief promptly.
In an order dated July 27, the court stated, “This Court is of the considered opinion that the said officer is to be relieved from the post of Commissioner of HYDRAA in the interest of justice, to uphold the Rule of Law and the Majesty of Courts.” The ruling stemmed from two contempt petitions filed by M/s Shanta Sriram Constructions Private Limited. The company claimed that HYDRAA officials trespassed on its 40-acre property in Lothukunta village on July 17-18, despite prior commitments to avoid interference.
The petitioner alleged that HYDRAA, with police presence and JCB machinery, demolished temporary structures and initiated fencing without issuing prior notice. While HYDRAA is tasked with protecting public assets from encroachment, it argued that its presence at the location was at the behest of the revenue department to demarcate the property.
Court’s Strong Reprimand and Greek Mythology Comparison
In a sharp rebuke, the court compared HYDRAA to the mythical Hydra from Greek mythology, warning against the agency’s perceived invincibility. The court remarked, “If courts were to permit HYDRAA to overpower/overtake every formidable adversary i.e., citizens of State, by not adhering to rule of law, then it would sound a death knell to rule of law.”
More Read
The court questioned the rationale behind the revenue department’s involvement of HYDRAA, especially when the property was adjudicated as belonging to the petitioner by competent courts. The lack of notice to the petitioners further underscored the agency’s overreach.
Justice Jukanti pointedly noted, “These facts are suffice to hold that the acts of respondent/ contemnor amount to interference in the administration of justice and wilful disobedience of Court orders. Such acts not only undermine the majesty of Courts, but also undermine the Rule of Law.” The court decreed that the contemnor’s actions amounted to “wilful, deliberate, intentional disobedience to the restraining orders of this Court and breach of an undertaking given.”
The court dismissed the Commissioner’s apology as insincere, as it came only after the court’s dissatisfaction with its absence in his initial affidavit. On July 23, the court contemplated involving the Army to protect the contentious site, citing a loss of faith in the state government. However, this measure was put on hold following the state’s assurance that HYDRAA would comply with court directives.
More Read
Advocate Hareesh Kumar represented the petitioners, while Advocate General A Sudarshan Reddy, along with advocate R Sameer Ahmed, appeared for the respondents.
