HYDERABAD: Pointing out “repeated violations” of judicial orders by HYDRAA Commissioner AV Ranganath, the Telangana High Court on Monday directed Chief Secretary Sanjay Jaju to relieve him of the post and identify a suitable officer to head the agency.
Reading out the list of 63 pending contempt cases against the HYDRAA commissioner in open court, Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti refused to accept the written apology filed by Ranganath through an affidavit.
The judge stated that the repeated instances of disobedience left the court with no option but to recommend to the chief secretary that a different officer be appointed to head the agency.
The court made the observations while hearing contempt proceedings initiated by Shanta Sriram Constructions Pvt Ltd, which alleged that HYDRAA officials had trespassed on its 40-acre land at Lothkunta in Medchal-Malkajgiri district despite subsisting high court restraint orders.
During the previous hearing on July 24, the court withdrew its proposed direction for deployment of Army personnel after the Advocate General sought reconsideration, while directing the commissioner to personally appear and tender an unconditional apology. Instead, Ranganath filed only a written affidavit, which the court found unsatisfactory.
“The commissioner, HYDRAA should be relieved of the post... if such an officer is allowed to continue, the majesty of the court and the dignity of law will be at peril,” Justice Jukanti observed, adding that Ranganath’s actions had placed the rule of law at risk.
HC: Ranganath’s conduct undermines judiciary
Referring to Supreme Court precedents on contempt jurisprudence, Justice Jukanti observed that courts may accept an apology when tendered at the first instance, but not where repeated acts of contempt are alleged.
The court noted that three contempt petitions had arisen out of a single writ petition, reflecting a continuing pattern of non-compliance.
Comparing Ranganath to the Lernaean Hydra of Greek mythology, Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti described him as “uncontrollable” despite repeated restraint orders and held that such conduct undermines the authority of the judiciary.