Telangana High Court reserves verdict on KTR, party leaders’ visit to Medigadda barrage

A complaint was filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer of Medigadda against the BRS working president and other party leaders for filming the area using a drone camera without prior permission

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court reserved its verdict on a case filed against BRS working president K T Rama Rao and other party leaders in connection with an incident at the Mahadevpur police Station in Jayashankar Bhupalpally district.

The judge extended the interim orders, directing that Rama Rao and other leaders not be arrested until the final verdict was delivered. The court also clarified that the exemption from attending trial court proceedings granted to Rama Rao would remain in effect until the decision was made.

---

The case stems from an incident on July 26, 2024, when Rama Rao, along with Venkataramana Reddy and Suman, allegedly visited the Medigadda barrage.

According to the complaint filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer of Medigadda, the trio filmed the area using a drone camera without any prior permission or information. Based on this complaint, Mahadevpur police registered an FIR against the BRS leaders.

In response, Rama Rao, Venkataramana Reddy, and Suman filed a petition, claiming that no offence had been committed and that the FIR was baseless.

They sought the cancellation of the FIR and the suspension of further proceedings, including the investigation.

During the proceedings, Public Prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao argued on behalf of the police, stating that the use of drones in the area posed a future risk to the Medigadda Reservoir.

He further emphasised that the region had been designated as a prohibited zone to prevent drone flights. On the other hand, the petitioner’s lawyer T V Ramana Rao, argued that for any region to be classified as prohibited, a Gazette notification by the Central government was required, which had not been issued in this case.

He asserted that the State’s declaration of Medigadda as a prohibited area was not legally valid without the Central government’s notification.

The judge expressed displeasure with the prosecutor’s stance and questioned the legality of considering Medigadda a prohibited area without the necessary Gazette notification from the central government.

After hearing both parties, the judge announced that the judgment would be reserved and ordered the Public Prosecutor to submit a copy of any central government notification regarding the Medigadda area.

The court also directed the government to clarify why the region was classified as prohibited without the necessary official gazette notification.