Key Facts
The Telangana High Court has closed two contempt of court cases against HYDRAA Commissioner A.V. Ranganath after the agency's standing counsel assured the court that officers would not interfere with the property of a petitioner in Lothkunta, Medchal Malkajgiri district. Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti, while delivering the common order, made critical observations about the conduct of HYDRAA officials.
Court's Observations
Justice Jukanti remarked that HYDRAA officers 'are not super cops of governance (in their field)' and cannot act beyond the purview of law. Referring to the lands in survey numbers 1 and 2 of Lothkunta, the judge stated that the 'act of HYDRAA is a flagrant violation of the orders of the court.' The court further noted, 'It is apparent that the offices of HYDRAA are of the notion that they are a Class Apart…I am afraid they are not so and they can’t be.'
Background of the Case
The petitioner, M/s Shanta Sriram Constructions Private Limited, had filed a writ petition in 2016 challenging proceedings issued by district revenue officials, including the Trimulgherry Tehsildar, over the said lands. In 2021, the High Court directed the authorities not to interfere with the petitioner's property. Subsequently, the petitioner filed two contempt cases alleging that officials were violating the court orders.
On January 9, 2026, the officials gave an undertaking that they would not interfere with the property. However, HYDRAA officials allegedly entered the property again, citing a complaint lodged by the Society to Save Rocks, leading to two fresh contempt cases.
Impact and What Readers Should Know
The court made it clear that HYDRAA authorities 'should not venture into such misadventures.' Justice Jukanti emphasized, 'Officers may be enthusiastic to undertake or perform acts in the interest of the State but such acts have to be within four corners of law.' The verdict declared that the actions of HYDRAA were illegal and cannot be sustained.
FAQ
- What did the Telangana High Court say about HYDRAA officers? The court observed that HYDRAA officers are not 'super cops of governance' and must act within the four corners of law.
- Why were contempt cases filed against HYDRAA? The petitioner, M/s Shanta Sriram Constructions, alleged that HYDRAA officials violated court orders by interfering with their property in Lothkunta.
- What was the outcome of the contempt cases? The court closed the cases after HYDRAA gave an undertaking not to interfere with the property, but warned officials against such misadventures.
Source: www.thehindu.com