Telangana HC Orders Then Recalls Arrest of HYDRAA Chief A.V. Ranganath

On Monday, the Telangana High Court initially ordered the arrest of HYDRAA Commissioner A.V. Ranganath in a contempt case concerning disputed land at Lothukunta in Malkajgiri Mandal, before recalling the order and directing him to appear in person. Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar issued the arrest directive following a lunch motion filed by petitioner M/s. Shantha Sriram Constructions Pvt. Ltd., but later accepted a request from Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy to recall it.

The Commissioner subsequently appeared before the court during the evening session at approximately 6:30 p.m. During the hearing, Justice Anil Kumar criticized the repeated disobedience of judicial orders by the authorities, observing that their conduct reflected a complete disregard for the rule of law.

The contempt case arose from allegations by M/s. Shantha Sriram Constructions Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner stated that despite two earlier contempt proceedings and specific directions from the High Court restraining HYDRAA from entering its property in Lothukunta, the authorities had once again entered the land.

The petitioner further alleged that HYDRAA had illegally registered an FIR against the company after entering the property, compelling them to initiate contempt proceedings for a third time.

During the proceedings, Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy, representing the respondents, requested an opportunity to explain the circumstances and asked for the arrest order to be recalled, which the court accepted on the condition of the Commissioner's personal appearance.

Expressing serious displeasure, Justice Anil Kumar observed that government authorities could not act in defiance of binding judicial orders. The court noted that a division bench of the High Court had already decided the property dispute, ruling that the land was private property. The judge remarked that if the State was aggrieved by that judgment, it should have pursued remedies before the Supreme Court instead of repeatedly entering the land in violation of High Court directions.

The judge further remarked that the authorities had allegedly violated court orders on three occasions, giving the impression that they were seeking to confront the judiciary. Justice Anil Kumar likened the Commissioner's conduct to that of a "habitual offender" in repeatedly disregarding judicial directions.

The court also questioned the registration of the criminal case against the petitioner and sought to know why a copy of the FIR had not been furnished. At the request of the Advocate General, the court granted the respondents time to file an affidavit explaining their stand and scheduled the next hearing for Tuesday.