Telangana High Court Warns A.V. Ranganath
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Tuesday warned HYDRAA Commissioner A.V. Ranganath that continued disregard for court directions and a hurried approach could affect his career while hearing a contempt petition linked to disputed land in Suraram.
The court expressed displeasure over Ranganath’s failure to appear in person in the contempt case. It observed that even if personal appearance was not possible, he could have joined through video conferencing. The court also noted that no affidavit had initially been filed and said the omission reflected negligence.
The bench clarified that it was not favouring any party and was only enforcing the law and court orders. It questioned why boards and fencing were being erected in disputed properties in every case and asked whether petitioners could physically remove or relocate the land.
Court seeks explanation on delayed compliance
The court directed that an affidavit be filed explaining why the board was not removed for nearly 20 days and why Ranganath had failed to appear. It initially ordered him to remain present if an affidavit was not submitted and adjourned the hearing until later in the day.
When HYDRAA’s counsel later filed an affidavit, the court accepted it and exempted Ranganath from personal appearance in future hearings. However, it observed that the affidavit had been prepared casually and required a more comprehensive explanation.
The bench remarked that ignoring court orders and adopting a rushed approach could have consequences for Ranganath’s professional career and advised him accordingly before adjourning the matter.
Petition challenges fencing on disputed land
The case stems from a petition filed by Jitendra, who alleged that HYDRAA erected fencing and installed a board on disputed land in Suraram without issuing any notice.
While hearing the petition earlier, the court expressed strong displeasure and warned officials against interfering in matters under judicial consideration. It ordered HYDRAA to remove the fencing and board within 48 hours.
According to the petitioner, the directions were not implemented, prompting the filing of a contempt petition. The court subsequently directed Ranganath to appear on June 9 and explain why its order to remove the board within 24 hours had not been followed.
During Tuesday’s hearing before the bench of Justice N.P. Sravan Kumar, HYDRAA’s counsel submitted that the court’s directions had been complied with. Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Vidyasagar argued that despite the 48-hour deadline, HYDRAA had failed to act within the stipulated period.
The judge again questioned Ranganath’s absence before accepting the affidavit and postponing further hearing in the matter.
