Telangana HC Orders Replacement of HYDRAA Commissioner in Contempt Case

The Telangana High Court has directed the State Government to appoint a new HYDRAA Commissioner, ordering the replacement of A.V. Ranganath after finding serious lapses in compliance with judicial directions in a contempt case. Rejecting the Commissioner's apology as belated and lacking sincerity, the court stressed that adherence to judicial orders is a constitutional obligation and essential to upholding the rule of law.

The direction was issued by Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti while hearing three contempt petitions related to a 40-acre land dispute in Lothukunta near Hyderabad. The court instructed the Chief Secretary to appoint a suitable officer to head the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA) at the earliest. It also noted with concern that 63 contempt of court cases are pending against A.V. Ranganath in various courts, observing that such a large number of cases against a single public official raises serious questions about compliance with judicial orders.

The High Court observed that every government official is duty-bound to implement court directions and that repeated violations weaken public faith in the justice delivery system. It recalled that similar warnings had been issued to the Commissioner in an earlier contempt case, but found no change in his approach. Referring to settled Supreme Court principles, the bench ruled that an apology offered only after the possibility of punishment arises cannot be treated as genuine, leading it to reject Ranganath's plea.

The contempt petitions were filed by a private real estate company, which alleged that HYDRAA officials repeatedly entered the disputed property despite court orders restraining such action. During an earlier hearing, the High Court had directed the Commissioner to file a personal affidavit along with an apology.

Responding to the order, A.V. Ranganath defended HYDRAA's actions, stating that the agency had acted in accordance with the Constitution, protecting government lands, lakes and public assets. He claimed HYDRAA had safeguarded government properties worth over ₹1.5 lakh crore, restored six lakes and reclaimed thousands of acres of encroached land. He also asserted that the 63 contempt cases were filed by alleged land encroachers and said he would contest them legally while continuing to uphold the law. The ruling has now shifted focus to the State Government's next course of action and the future leadership of HYDRAA.