Telangana HC likens HYDRAA chief to habitual offender in contempt case
Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar of the Telangana High Court initially ordered the arrest of HYDRAA Commissioner AV Ranganath in a contempt case but recalled the order after the Advocate General’s request. The case stems from repeated violations of court directions by HYDRAA over land at Lothukunta.
By Our Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Monday ordered the arrest of HYDRAA Commissioner A.V. Ranganath in a contempt case, but later recalled the direction on the request of the Advocate General and directed the Commissioner to appear before the Court in person.
The Commissioner appeared before the Court during the evening session, where Justice Anil Kumar came down heavily on the repeated disobedience of judicial orders, observing that the conduct of the authorities reflected a complete disregard for the rule of law.
The contempt case was moved before the Court by way of a lunch motion by M/s. Shantha Sriram Constructions Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner alleged that despite two earlier contempt proceedings and specific directions of the High Court restraining HYDRAA from entering its land at Lothukunta in Malkajgiri Mandal, the authorities had once again entered the property.
It was further alleged that HYDRAA had illegally registered an FIR against the company after entering the land, compelling the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings for the third time.
During the hearing, Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy, appearing for the respondents, sought an opportunity to explain the circumstances and requested that the arrest order be recalled. Accepting the request, the Court directed Commissioner A.V. Ranganath to appear in person, following which he appeared before the Court at about 6.30 p.m.
Expressing serious displeasure, Justice Anil Kumar observed that there was a rule of law in the State and that government authorities could not act in defiance of binding judicial orders. The Court noted that the dispute over the property had already been decided by the division bench of this Court and that if the State was aggrieved by the earlier judgment holding the land to be private property, it ought to have pursued its remedies before the Supreme Court instead of repeatedly entering the land in violation of the High Court’s directions.
The Judge further remarked that the authorities had allegedly violated the Court’s orders on three occasions and observed that such repeated acts gave an impression that they were seeking to confront the judiciary. Justice Anil Kumar also questioned the registration of the criminal case against the petitioner and sought to know why a copy of the FIR had not been furnished, observing that such conduct could not be justified.
The Court made strong remarks against the repeated defiance of its orders, observing that the Commissioner had become “like a habitual offender” in repeatedly disregarding judicial directions. At the request of the Advocate General, the Court granted the respondents time to file an affidavit explaining their stand and posted the contempt case for further hearing on Tuesday.
