Telangana HC directs State government to take action against Sircilla Collector
Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti of the Telangana High Court has directed the State government to take action against Rajanna-Sircilla District Collector Sandeep Kumar Jha for initiating a criminal case against Vanapatla Kavitha, a Mid Manair oustee, despite a clear court order granting her rehabilitation benefits.
By Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday directed the State government to take action against Rajanna-Sircilla District Collector Sandeep Kumar Jha for his role in the registration of an FIR against Vanapatla Kavitha, a Mid Manair oustee, despite clear court directions to pay her compensation.
Kavitha, who lost her home during the Mid Manair project, had earlier succeeded in a writ petition in which the High Court held that she must be included in the list of project displaced families of Anupuram village, Vemulawada mandal, and be extended rehabilitation benefits.
However, instead of implementing the order, the district administration proceeded to register a criminal case against her at Vemulawada Town Police Station, prompting her to move the present criminal petition seeking the quashing of the FIR.
During the proceedings, the Court examined the original records and noted that it was the Collector himself who instructed his subordinates to initiate police action. A letter dated November 5, 2024, addressed to the SHO by the Tahsildar, was found to be based directly on the Collector’s orders. When questioned about the source of such power, the Additional Advocate General was unable to justify the Collector’s authority.
Justice Jukanti observed that the Collector had overreached the orders of the Court, acted “without any power”, and instead of implementing the writ directions, had gone to the extent of misguiding the Court and instructing police to book a case against the beneficiary. Such conduct, the judge said, was “an abuse of process of law” and fell within the purview of contempt.
The bench recalled that the earlier order in the Writ Petition had conclusively declared Kavitha’s entitlement to project benefits, which had neither been stayed nor set aside. Despite this, the district administration headed by the Collector had chosen to initiate coercive steps. Justice Jukanti remarked that the head of district administration has a constitutional duty to uphold and implement court orders in letter and spirit, rather than defy them.
Terming the FIR against Kavitha as vindictive and unsustainable, the Court directed the government to take action against the Collector and reiterated that the compensation due to the petitioner must be implemented without further delay.
