Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Telangana High Court on Tuesday, September 1, temporarily stayed a single bench direction seeking the replacement of Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA) Commissioner AV Ranganath.
A division bench comprising Justices P Sam Koshy and Narsinga Rao Nandikonda passed the interim order while hearing two appeals filed by Ranganath against the single bench order in contempt proceedings. The suspension of the earlier order will remain in force until November 3, when the matter will be taken up again.
The bench also ordered Ranganath and Shanta Sriram Constructions Private Limited to maintain status quo over a 40-acre property at Lothkunta village in Malkajgiri. Shanta Sriram had alleged that HYDRAA descended on their 40 acre property in the Lothkunta area and damaged containers, chairs, tables and other office infrastructure while demolishing tin-sheet structures. HYDRAA, however, maintained that the land belonged to the government.
On July 27, the single bench had observed that Ranganath should be relieved of his HYDRAA post, stating that the agency’s actions amounted to wilful and deliberate disobedience of the court’s directions and a breach of an undertaking.
The bench had also asked the Chief Secretary to identify a suitable replacement for Ranganath at the earliest.
During Tuesday’s hearing, senior counsel Rajiv Shakdher, appearing for HYDRAA, argued that the direction effectively penalised Ranganath without giving him adequate notice or an opportunity to place all relevant records before the court. He also questioned the single bench’s authority to direct the government to replace the officer.
The construction company, however, defended the earlier order, contending that asking an officer to be relieved from a particular post did not amount to dismissal or punishment. Its counsel said the single bench had detailed the circumstances in which revenue officials and HYDRAA personnel entered the disputed land and carried out demolitions.
The division bench also questioned whether HYDRAA had acted hastily in demolishing the structures. It observed that the agency could have placed records before the court to establish its claim that the disputed land belonged to the government.
After admitting Ranganath’s appeals, the bench stayed the single judge’s direction until the next hearing and ordered both sides to maintain the existing position on the property.