Telangana HC raps HYDRAA yet again, defers Army deployment order

Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar of the Telangana High Court criticised HYDRAA and the State Government for repeated violations of court orders in a contempt case involving Shantha Sriram Constructions’ land at Lothukunta. The Court deferred its earlier order on Army deployment until July 27, warning that continued interference undermines the rule of law.

By Our Legal Correspondent

Hyderabad: Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Friday once again came down heavily on HYDRAA and the State Government over the repeated alleged violation of judicial orders in a contempt case, observing that it was exercising restraint for the third time solely on the assurance of the State’s Chief Law Officer and deferred consideration of its earlier direction regarding deployment of Army personnel till July 27.

---

The observations were made while hearing contempt cases filed by M/s. Shantha Sriram Constructions Private Limited alleging violation of the High Court’s earlier orders concerning its land measuring Ac.40.00 in Survey Nos.1 and 2 of Lothkunta Village, Malkajgiri Mandal.

During the previous hearing, the Court had initially directed the identification of Army authorities to secure the property but deferred the implementation of the direction after Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy assured that there would be no further interference by HYDRAA officials.

On Friday’s hearing, referring to the history of the litigation, Justice Anil Kumar observed that three contempt cases had arisen from the same writ petition and that on each of the earlier occasions, assurances had been given on behalf of the offices of the District Collector and HYDRAA that the Court’s orders would be complied with. The Court, however, noted that despite such assurances, allegations of continued interference had persisted.

Expressing strong displeasure, Justice Anil Kumar questioned who had authorised HYDRAA to move around with police personnel wherever it carried out operations. The Judge also orally commented that HYDRAA had several statutory responsibilities but appeared to be focusing only on actions that resulted in repeated violations of court orders.
He further remarked that taking large police contingents to disputed sites was creating fear among the public. The Court also observed that it had refrained from ordering the arrest of HYDRAA Commissioner A.V. Ranganath only because of the intervention and assurances of the Advocate General, and made it clear that such indulgence could not continue indefinitely.

The Court further questioned how HYDRAA, which was not even a party to the original writ petition, the writ appeal, the civil proceedings or the earlier contempt cases, had assumed authority to interfere with the subject property. Justice Anil Kumar remarked that such conduct was unknown to law and observed that no authority was above the law or beyond the reach of the Court.

The Judge further observed that if such conduct were permitted to continue, it would undermine the rule of law and reduce judicial orders to a mockery.

Taking note of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent denying any interference with the petitioner’s land and seeking permission to file a detailed additional affidavit, the Court expressed surprise over the request for a further affidavit, observing that the alleged contumacious conduct was apparent from the acts complained of.

Justice Anil Kumar nevertheless recorded that it was only because of the assurance given by the Chief Law Officer of the State that the Court was exercising restraint and sparing the officer from being taken into custody for the third time. The Court observed that the Advocate General had been fair in his submissions.

The Court directed the respondent to file the detailed affidavit and ordered that its earlier direction dated July 23 regarding the proposed deployment of Army personnel would be considered thereafter. The contempt cases were accordingly posted to July 27 for further hearing.