Telangana High Court stays contempt order against HYDRAA chief AV Ranganath

Telangana High Court stays contempt order against HYDRAA chief AV Ranganath

HYDERABAD: A division bench of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday suspended a single judge's order that had found HYDRAA Commissioner A V Ranganath guilty of contempt of court and directed the chief secretary to relieve him from the post for wilful disobedience of court orders. The order came in connection with a dispute over around 40 acres of land at Lothkunta (also spelled Lothu Kunta), Secunderabad, claimed to be owned by Shanta Sriram Constructions.

The bench, comprising Justices P Sam Koshy and Nandikonda Narsing Rao, was hearing a contempt appeal moved by Ranganath challenging the single judge's order. The court posted the matter to November 3 for final hearing. However, the bench made it clear that Ranganath or any HYDRAA personnel should not enter the disputed site in the interim.

The single judge had in July asked the chief secretary to find a suitable replacement for Ranganath while hearing a contempt petition filed by the construction firm, which alleged that the agency entered the site in violation of existing court orders and demolished structures.

Court's Observations and Counsel's Arguments

Senior counsel Rajiv Shakdher, appearing for Ranganath, contended that while there was a long history to the dispute, the punishment imposed on his client by the single judge went far beyond what was permissible under contempt rules. "Even SC held that courts can sentence him, or impose fine, but this kind of an order to relieve is way beyond the court's jurisdiction in a contempt matter," Shakdher stated.

He further argued that had the single judge granted more time to file a detailed counter, the direction may not have been issued in the same manner. He submitted that the land claimed by the construction firm was around three kilometres away from the disputed site, and contended that the 62 contempt cases pointed to by the judge as pending against Ranganath were not part of the present case.

The bench asked if this was the punishment for 62 contempt cases, what the fate of the finance secretary, who is facing over 5,000 contempt cases, would be. The bench further questioned how, even as courts issue contempt notices and wait for responses, agencies like HYDRAA go on special drives, particularly over weekends, and take up demolitions.

The bench also took note of the contention that HYDRAA "has done some good work" and observed, "We are with you but when the matter is sub judice how could you have done this? Prima facie it appears to be he (appellant) was over enthusiastic."

The division bench headed by Justice Sam Koshi observed that when the identification, boundaries, and ownership of land remain disputed, authorities should exercise restraint and avoid hurried action. "If you want to continue in service, it is better to stay away from the disputed land," the bench told Ranganath, while making it clear that it was not deciding the title or survey-number dispute.

The court noted that the dispute over Survey Nos. 1 and 2 was already sub judice and that any finding on land identification could affect other pending proceedings. It suggested that a joint survey and proper demarcation by revenue authorities should precede further action.

HYDRAA's Defence and Legal Contentions

Counsel for HYDRAA argued that Ranganath had acted on official requisitions, government records, and geo-coordinates indicating that government land identified as GLR 243 was involved. At most, the matter involved a factual error and did not constitute wilful disobedience, which is necessary for contempt, he contended.

Counsel also challenged the single judge's reference to 62 contempt cases against the official, stating that none had resulted in a finding of guilt and that the cases had not been properly put to Ranganath for his explanation. Another major contention was the single judge's direction to remove Ranganath from office; counsel argued that a contempt court cannot impose a new form of punishment beyond those recognised under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, relying on Supreme Court precedent.

The division bench observed that the conduct of the official and the punishment imposed were separate issues requiring independent consideration. It also stressed the need to protect both the petitioner's property rights and public property if the land is ultimately found to belong to the government.