Here is why Telangana High Court ordered removal of IPS officer as HYDRAA Commissioner

The Telangana High Court has directed the State government to relieve Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Protection Agency (HYDRAA) Commissioner AV Ranganath, who is an IPS officer, from his post after holding that the agency willfully disobeyed its orders [Shanta Sriram Constructions Private Limited v AV Ranganthan]

Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti said HHDRAA officials breached an undertaking by entering a private property with officials, police personnel and heavy machinery to carry out demolition and fencing activities.

The Court thus asked the chief secretary of Telangana to replace the HYDRAA chief "as early as possible".

“This Court is of the considered opinion that the said officer is to be relieved from the post of Commissioner of HYDRAA in the interest of justice, to uphold the Rule of Law and the Majesty of Courts,” the Bench said in an order passed on July 27.

The Court passed the order on two contempt petitions filed by M/s Shanta Sriram Constructions Private Limited, which alleged that HYDRAA officials entered its 40-acre property in Lothukunta village on July 17-18 despite an earlier undertaking to the Court that the agency would not interfere with the land. 

According to the petitioner, HYDRAA officials, accompanied by police personnel and JCB machines, demolished temporary structures and attempted to fence the property without issuing any notice.

HYDRAA is empowered to protect the public assets like roads, drains, public streets, water bodies, open spaces and public parks from encroachment. The agency told the Court that its staff was present at the site on request of the revenue department to demarcate the property.

In a strongly worded judgment, the Court likened HYDRAA to the mythical Greek Hydra and warned that the agency should not consider itself "invincible."

“If courts were to permit HYDRAA to overpower/overtake every formidable adversary i.e., citizens of State, by not adhering to rule of law, then it would sound a death knell to rule of law,” it said.

The Court questioned how and for what purposes the revenue department roped in the services of HYDRAA, when the property was declared to be the property of the petitioner by the competent courts.

It also noted that no notice had been issued to the petitioners.

“These facts are suffice to hold that the acts of respondent/ contemnor amount to interference in the administration of justice and wilful disobedience of Court orders. Such acts not only undermine the majesty of Courts, but also undermine the Rule of Law,” the Court said.

The Bench added that courts cannot turn a blind eye to the acts of authorities who flagrantly violate judicial orders under one guise or the other for reasons best known to them.

Thus, it ruled that acts of the contemnor constitute “wilful, deliberate, intentional disobedience to the restraining orders of this Court and breach of an undertaking given”.”

The Court rejected the Commissioner's apology, observing that it was not genuine and was tendered only after the Court expressed displeasure over the absence of an apology in his first affidavit.

On July 23, the Court had contemplated directing Army to protect the disputed site, stating that it had lost its faith in the State government and its instrumentalities. However, the Court later kept the direction in abeyance on State's assurance that HYDRAA would abide by court orders.

Advocate Hareesh Kumar represented the petitioners.

Advocate General A Sudarshan Reddy with advocate R Sameer Ahmed appeared for the respondents.

[Read Judgment]