Telangana High Court seeks removal of HYDRAA Commissioner AV Ranganath

The Telangana High Court requested the Chief Secretary to remove HYDRAA Commissioner A V Ranganath, observing that an officer facing 63 contempt cases could not continue in office. The Court made the observation while hearing contempt petitions related to disputed land in Medchal-Malkajgiri.

Goutham Sirasani

Hyderabad: Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Monday requested the Chief Secretary of Telangana to remove AV Ranganath as HYDRAA Commissioner, observing that an officer facing 63 contempt of court cases could not continue in the post.

---

The direction was passed while hearing contempt cases filed by M/s Shantha Sriram Constructions Private Limited, alleging repeated violation of the High Court’s orders concerning its land admeasuring Ac.40.00 in Survey Nos. 1 and 2 of Lothkunta Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri district. During the previous hearings, the Court had expressed serious concern over the repeated alleged interference by HYDRAA officials despite assurances given on behalf of the State and had even considered deploying Army personnel to secure the disputed property before deferring the direction at the request of the Advocate General.

HYDRAA Commissioner AV Ranganath filed an additional affidavit tendering an unconditional apology and stating that he held the highest regard for the judiciary and the rule of law. The Commissioner stated that neither he nor any HYDRAA official had entered the disputed 40-acre land after the High Court’s orders and denied carrying out any demolition or other activity on the property. He further alleged that the petitioner had attempted to mislead the Court by presenting distorted facts.

The explanation, however, did not satisfy the Court. Justice Anil Kumar noted that despite being granted multiple opportunities, the additional affidavit was filed only later in the day after the hearing had first been adjourned from the morning session to the afternoon, and thereafter further time had been granted. The Court observed that the apology had been tendered only after it expressed its displeasure and insisted on an explanation, and not voluntarily. Referring to settled principles governing contempt jurisdiction, the Court observed that an apology must be an act of genuine contrition offered at the earliest opportunity, and that an apology tendered only when punishment appears imminent loses its sincerity and mitigating value.

During the hearing, Justice Anil Kumar observed that respect for judicial orders is one of the fundamental pillars of a constitutional democracy and that the implementation of judgments is inseparable from the rule of law. The Court remarked that the true majesty of the judiciary lies not merely in delivering judgments but in ensuring their prompt and effective implementation, observing that disregard for judicial orders or unreasonable delay in complying with them undermines the administration of justice and deprives successful litigants of the fruits of the relief granted by the Courts.

Referring to the facts of the case, the Court noted that this was the third round of contempt proceedings arising out of the same dispute. The Court also observed that in the earlier contempt proceedings, an undertaking had been given on behalf of HYDRAA that neither its Commissioner nor any of its officials would enter the petitioner’s property. According to the Court, the present proceedings arose despite those assurances having been recorded earlier.

Justice Anil Kumar further observed that a senior officer holding the rank and status of Secretary to the Government could not repeatedly violate judicial orders and thereafter seek to avoid the consequences by filing affidavits. Taking note of the fact that the officer is involved in 63 contempt cases in the last two years, the Court observed that such an extraordinary number of contempt proceedings against a serving senior officer was wholly unacceptable. The Judge remarked that officers entrusted with implementing the law are expected to uphold the sanctity of judicial orders and not repeatedly invite contempt proceedings. The Court also observed that repeated allegations of contempt against the same officer consume valuable judicial time and reflect a disturbing disregard for the authority of the Courts.

Observing that the issue went beyond the present case and concerned the administration of justice itself, Justice Anil Kumar requested the Chief Secretary of the State to relieve A V Ranganath from the post of HYDRAA Commissioner and appoint another suitable officer of the rank of Inspector General of Police to head the agency.