Apologise, HC Tells HYDRAA Chief
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Friday delivered one of its strongest indictments against HYDRAA commissioner AV Ranganath, stating that his actions have reached a stage where “they make a mockery of the rule of law and the majesty of the court”.
The court noted that Ranganath suddenly became an all-encompassing authority and interfered with the course of justice in cases where he was not appointed as a defendant and did not comply with the court’s orders.
The court said the commissioner’s actions “went far beyond the rule of law” and warned that had it not been for the intervention of Attorney General A. Sudershan Reddy, he might have been ordered to be detained in the ongoing defamation case.
Shanta Sriram Constructions Pvt. Hearing of contempt petitions filed by. Ltd., Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti, who filed suit against HYDRAA for the destruction and interference of its 40-acre land in Lothkunta, directed Ranganath to file a detailed personal affidavit on July 27 explaining the circumstances under which the agency entered the disputed property despite court orders. The court also ordered him to give strict assurance that HYDRAA will not enter the property again until further orders are received.
The July 23 order passed by the court regarding the deployment of the Army to Lothukunta to detain HYDRAA officials if they violate court orders will be taken into consideration after the submission of Ranganath’s affidavit on July 27.
Noting the strongest rejection of HYDRAA’s conduct, the court observed that an authority that was not even a party to the original court hearing had “interfered with the administration of justice” and called this development “unprecedented and unheard of in the history of the Supreme Court.” The court noted that HYDRAA officers were “within the reachable arms of the court” and warned that allowing such behavior would undermine the rule of law and make judicial decisions a mockery.
Justice Anil Kumar noted that this is the third instance in which the court has imposed restraint solely on the basis of comments made by the Solicitor General. The judge observed that had it not been for the “gracious presence of the chief legal officer of the state” and the plea for leniency, the court might have ordered the commissioner’s detention.
Appreciating the AG’s assistance, the judge observed that he had been “very fair to the court” and stated that “people on the other side of the Musi River should also know that there is an Attorney General who has been fair to the court”.
The Board questioned HYDRAA’s expanded role in matters normally within the jurisdiction of regulatory agencies. Referring to representations allegedly sent to HYDRAA by departments, including defense authorities, the court asked why agencies like revenue and irrigation department, GHMC and other authorities had approached HYDRAA despite having independent legal powers to deal with violations.
The judge wondered whether the government intended to make the Revenue Code, Irrigation Act and other legislation redundant by allowing only the HYDRAA Act. The judge questioned whether HYDRAA was allowed to bypass authorities established by various statutes.
The Court stated that if each ministry distributes its responsibilities through HYDRAA, the necessity for the existence of separate legal authorities becomes questionable.
The court questioned the legal basis for HYDRAA to operate alongside large police contingents during enforcement operations. The bench sought to know what legal provisions of the HYDRAA Act empower the agency to deploy large numbers of police personnel, multiple vehicles, earth movers and other infrastructure and observed that such operations create fear and terror among ordinary citizens.
The judge also observed that HYDRAA was being selective. While the court noted that the institution could engage in many public interest activities, including the protection of lakes, it stated that its actions reflected “selective discrimination” and questioned why the institution immediately responded to some complaints while remaining inactive on others.
The judge observed that the commissioner appeared to be “a law unto himself” and noted that it had become a common occurrence for HYDRAA to ignore judicial orders and assume the functions of multiple government departments.
The court also expressed dissatisfaction with the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the commissioner. The affidavit merely denied the allegations and sought freedom to make a more detailed statement at a later stage.
Justice Anil Kumar observed that the court could not understand the need for “detailed additional counter-affidavit” when the alleged acts complained of were already clear and reiterated that the restriction was imposed only in view of the assurance given by the Attorney General.
