Telangana HC pulls up HYDRAA Commissioner over contempt in Suraram land dispute

Justice NV Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court cautioned HYDRAA Commissioner AV Ranganath that continued disregard of judicial directions could affect his career. The Court expressed displeasure over his failure to appear in a contempt case linked to a Suraram land dispute.

By Legal Correspondent

Hyderabad: Justice NV Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court cautioned HYDRAA Commissioner AV Ranganath that continued disregard of court directions and a hurried approach in official functioning could adversely impact his professional career while hearing a contempt case arising out of a land dispute in Suraram.

---

The Court expressed dissatisfaction over the Commissioner’s failure to appear before it despite earlier directions. Observing that personal appearance was not the only mode of participation, the Court remarked that he could have at least joined the proceedings through video conference.

The Court further noted that no affidavit had initially been filed explaining the alleged non-compliance of its earlier orders. The matter pertains to a contempt petition filed by a landowner alleging that HYDRAA officials had erected fencing and installed a board on disputed land situated in Suraram without issuing any prior notice and despite the dispute being pending adjudication before the Court.

Earlier, while hearing the writ petition, the High Court had expressed strong displeasure over the actions of the authorities and directed HYDRAA to remove the fencing and board within 48 hours.

Alleging that the directions were not complied with within the stipulated period, the petitioner subsequently initiated contempt proceedings. During the hearing, the Court directed that an affidavit be filed explaining why the board remained in place for nearly twenty days and why the Commissioner had failed to appear before the Court.

The Bench initially indicated that the Commissioner should remain present if no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming. Later in the day, counsel appearing for HYDRAA filed an affidavit stating that the Court’s directions had been complied with.

Taking the affidavit on record, the Court exempted the Commissioner from personal appearance in future hearings. However, the Bench observed that the affidavit appeared to have been prepared in a casual manner and required a more comprehensive explanation regarding the delay in implementation of the Court’s orders.

Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel Vidyasagar contended that even if compliance had eventually been effected, the authorities had failed to act within the 48-hour period specifically fixed by the Court.

Before adjourning the matter, Justice NV Shravan Kumar observed that public authorities are expected to act with greater responsibility while implementing judicial directions and cautioned that ignoring court orders could have serious consequences.

The matter has been posted for further consideration.