HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court has once again expressed serious displeasure over the conduct of HYDRAA Commissioner AV Ranganath, observing that his actions were “unprecedented” in the history of the court and warning that stringent action would follow unless he tendered an unconditional apology.
Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti, while hearing contempt cases filed by Shanta Sriram Constructions Private Limited in connection with a 40-acre land dispute at Lothkunta village in Medchal-Malkajgiri district, directed the HYDRAA commissioner to remain personally present before the court on July 27 and file a detailed affidavit explaining his actions.
The judge also made it clear that the order passed by the court on Thursday directing the deployment of Army personnel to protect the land would be considered after the HYDRAA chief files his affidavit on July 27.
The court further directed Ranganath to give a categorical undertaking that neither he nor HYDRAA officials would enter the disputed property again and to explain why officials allegedly entered the land on July 18 despite subsisting judicial orders.
HC says HYDRAA actions unprecedented
Making strong observations, Justice Jukanti questioned how an authority that was not even a party to the original writ petition, subsequent appeals, civil proceedings or the first contempt case had suddenly become an all-pervading authority interfering with the administration of justice. The judge described the situation as unprecedented and unheard of in the history of the High Court, adding that HYDRAA officials were not above the law.
The court observed that permitting such conduct to continue would undermine the rule of law and make a mockery of judicial orders. It also recorded that, for the third time, it had refrained from ordering the commissioner’s custody only at the request of Advocate General A Sudarshan Reddy, whose assistance and fairness were specifically appreciated.
Justice Jukanti also expressed dissatisfaction with the counter affidavit filed by Ranganath, particularly his request for liberty to file a more detailed affidavit later. The court remarked that it was unable to understand the need for a further affidavit when the alleged acts were already apparent from the record.
During the hearing, the court raised broader concerns over HYDRAA’s functioning, questioning why statutory agencies such as the Revenue and Irrigation departments and GHMC appeared to be routing matters through HYDRAA. The judge asked whether a single government order could effectively override the statutory powers of multiple authorities and remarked that the HYDRAA commissioner appeared to be functioning “as though he himself was the law.”
The court further questioned HYDRAA’s deployment of large police contingents, official vehicles and earthmovers during enforcement operations, asking under what authority such resources were mobilised and whether the operations were genuinely in the public interest or intended to create fear among citizens.
The matter has been posted to July 27 for the commissioner’s comprehensive affidavit tendering an unconditional apology, explaining the alleged violations and assuring future compliance with the court’s orders.