Find suitable replacement for HYDRAA chief Ranganath: Telangana HC to Govt

The Telangana High Court found HYDRAA Commissioner AV Ranganath guilty of civil contempt for violating court orders by entering disputed land at Lothukunta. Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar directed the Chief Secretary to remove him from office, stressing that the Rule of Law must prevail over arbitrary actions by officials.

By Our Legal Correspondent

Hyderabad: Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti of the Telangana High Court in his judgment on Friday held HYDRAA Commissioner AV Ranganath guilty of civil contempt for wilfully disobeying the Court’s orders, while advising the Chief Secretary of the State Government to relieve him from the post of Commissioner and find a suitable replacement of the officer as early as possible.

---

The contempt cases were filed by M/s. Shanta Sriram Constructions Pvt. Ltd., alleging that HYDRAA officials, accompanied by police personnel and heavy machinery, entered its 40-acre land at Lothukunta on July 17 and 18, demolished temporary structures and attempted to fence the property in violation of the High Court’s order dated June 10, 2026, wherein HYDRAA had undertaken not to enter or interfere with the petitioner’s land.

The Court took a serious view of the incident in the backdrop of nearly a decade of litigation over the property. The petitioner had succeeded before the Single Judge in 2021, the State’s civil suit questioning the petitioner’s title was rejected as barred by limitation and the Division Bench dismissed the State’s appeal in 2025, allowing the judgment to attain finality. Justice Jukanti noted that HYDRAA was never a party to any of those proceedings and never challenged the Division Bench’s order before the Supreme Court.

Earlier contempt cases had also been closed after the State and later HYDRAA assured the Court that the orders would be honoured and that its officers would not enter the property. Despite those assurances, HYDRAA again entered the land with police personnel, JCBs and other machinery, prompting the third round of contempt proceedings. Opening the judgment with a reference to the Greek mythological creature “Hydra”, Justice Anil observed that the serpentine water monster was known for its resilience and regenerative ability, making it appear nearly invincible, before expressing hope that HYDRAA was not under the same impression.

The Court observed that if constitutional courts permitted HYDRAA to overpower citizens by not adhering to the Rule of Law, “it would sound a death knell to Rule of Law.” The Judge further cautioned that acts committed in defiance of the Rule of Law “will not be upheld and such acts will be dealt sternly by Courts of Law, as the Hydra in Greek mythology was dealt with by Hercules.

The Court found that HYDRAA had failed to produce any document to show that the Revenue Department had authorised it to undertake fencing or demarcation of the land. No notice had been issued to the petitioner before entering the property and there was no specific denial of the allegations relating to demolition or the petitioner’s detention. The Judge held that HYDRAA had deliberately violated both the undertaking given to the Court and the restraining order passed earlier, amounting to “wilful, deliberate and intentional disobedience” of judicial directions.

Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar also rejected the apology tendered by the Commissioner, observing that it was offered only after the Court expressed displeasure over the absence of any apology in the first affidavit. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that such an apology was neither voluntary nor bona fide and therefore could not absolve the contemnor.

Taking an unprecedented view, the Court requested the Chief Secretary to the State Government to relieve AV Ranganath from the post of HYDRAA Commissioner and appoint a suitable replacement at the earliest. The Court observed that such a course was necessary “in the interest of justice, to uphold the Rule of Law and the Majesty of Courts”.

In one of the strongest observations in the judgment, the Court observed that “Rule of Law has to prevail NOT Rule of Men. If Rule of Men prevails, it’s a death knell for Democracy. This is a classic case of Rule of Men trying to prevail over Rule of Law, a fallacy which shall remain a Dream in a True Democracy like ours.”