Telangana HC warns govt over laxity in filing counter-affidavits on radar station case
The Telangana High Court criticised the State government for repeated delays in filing counter-affidavits, warning that further laxity would attract costs. The remarks came during a PIL challenging the allotment of 2,900 acres of reserve forest land in Vikarabad for a Navy radar station.
By Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: A Division Bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin, on Thursday voiced sharp disapproval over the State government’s persistent delay in filing counter-affidavits in pending matters, observing that such laxity undermines the very purpose of fixing specific hearing dates.
The observation came during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that questions the allotment of around 2,900 acres of reserve forest land in Vikarabad district for establishing a Navy radar station.
The PIL, filed by Damagundum Forest Protection JAC – Save Damagundum, raises environmental concerns over the diversion of forest land for defence purposes. It questions the adequacy of compensatory afforestation and flags possible ecological and health implications arising from the proposed low-frequency radar installation in the region.
At the outset, counsel appearing for both the Central and State governments sought three more weeks to file their counter-affidavits. The Bench remarked that the State had been taking an unusually long time to file its responses in several cases.
“When we assign a particular date, it is because there is seriousness or urgency attached to the matter. If affidavits are not filed within time, the entire purpose gets defeated,” the Chief Justice observed.
Recalling that the matter was last adjourned on October 15, the Bench noted that the governments had already been granted sufficient opportunities.
“We have been liberal in extending time so far. Please convey this message to your colleagues further delay in filing counter-affidavits will invite costs,” the court cautioned.
After recording the counsels’ apologies, the Bench granted a final extension of three weeks and posted the matter for the next hearing accordingly.
