Apologise, HC Tells HYDRAA Chief

The court noted that Ranganath had suddenly become the all-pervading authority and interfered with the administration of justice where he was not arrayed as the respondent and that he did not comply with the orders of the court.

The court stated that the actions of the commissioner “went far… beyond the rule of law” and warned that it would have ordered his custody in the ongoing contempt case but for the intervention of Advocate-General A. Sudershan Reddy.

Hearing contempt petitions filed by Shanta Sriram Constructions Pvt. Ltd against the HYDRAA for demolition and interference to its 40-acre land in Lothkunta, Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti directed Ranganath to file a detailed personal affidavit on July 27 explaining the circumstances under which the agency had entered the disputed property despite subsisting court orders. The court also directed him to furnish an unequivocal assurance that HYDRAA would not enter the property again, pending further orders.

The order dated July 23 passed by the court with regard to deploying the Army at Lothukunta to take custody of HYDRAA officials if they violated the orders of the court would be considered after filing of Ranganath’s affidavit on July 27.

Recording its strongest disapproval of HYDRAA's conduct, the court observed that an authority which was not even a party to the original writ proceedings had "interfered with the administration of justice" and termed the development "unprecedented and unheard of in the history of the High Court." The court noted that HYDRAA officers were "within the reachable arms of the court" and cautioned that permitting such conduct would undermine the rule of law and reduce judicial orders to a mockery.

Justice Anil Kumar remarked that this was the third occasion in which the court was exercising restraint solely on account of the submissions made by the Advocate General. The judge observed that, but for "the gracious presence of the chief law officer of the state" and his request for indulgence, the court would have ordered the commissioner to be taken into custody.

Appreciating the A-G's assistance, the judge observed that he had been "very fair to the court" and remarked that "people on the other side of the Musi River should also know that there is an Advocate General who is fair to the court."

The bench questioned HYDRAA's expanding role in matters ordinarily falling within the jurisdiction of statutory departments. Referring to representations allegedly being addressed to HYDRAA by departments including the defence authorities, the court asked why agencies such as the revenue and irrigation department, the GHMC and other authorities were approaching HYDRAA despite possessing independent statutory powers to deal with encroachments.

The judge wondered whether the government intended to render the Revenue Act, Irrigation Act and other statutory enactments redundant by allowing only the HYDRAA Act. The judge questioned whether HYDRAA was being permitted to bypass authorities established under various enactments.

The court remarked that if every department was to route its responsibilities through HYDRAA, the necessity of maintaining separate statutory authorities itself became questionable.

The court questioned the legal basis for HYDRAA moving with large police contingents during enforcement operations. The bench sought to know what statutory provisions of the HYDRAA Act authorized the agency to deploy numerous police personnel, multiple vehicles, earthmovers and other infrastructure and observed that such operations were creating fear and terrorizing among ordinary citizens.

The judge also observed that HYDRAA appeared to be acting selectively. While noting that the agency could undertake several public-interest activities, including protection of lakes, the court remarked that its actions reflected "selective discrimination" and questioned why it intervened immediately on some complaints while remaining inactive on others.

The judge observed that the commissioner appeared to be "a law unto himself", stating that it had become a regular phenomenon for HYDRAA to disregard judicial orders and assume the functions of multiple government departments.

The court also expressed dissatisfaction with the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the commissioner. The affidavit merely denied the allegations and sought liberty to file a more detailed affidavit at a later stage.

Justice Anil Kumar observed that the court was unable to understand the need for a "detailed additional counter-affidavit" when the alleged acts complained of were already apparent, and reiterated that restraint was being exercised only in view of the assurance extended by the Advocate General.