Hyderabad: Expressing outrage over “rampant and systematic defiance of court orders repeatedly” by Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA) and its commissioner AV Ranganath, Telangana high court on Monday directed the state govt to immediately relieve him from the post. Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti also directed the chief secretary to find a suitable replacement at the earliest.Noting that 63 contempt cases were pending against the IPS officer, an inspector general-rank officer, within a span of just one and a half years, the court expressed shock at the sheer volume of orders flouted.According to data furnished by the registry to the court, there were over 9,200 contempt cases registered in the high court during the past five years, of which 63 were against HYDRAA.Drawing a parallel, the bench remarked that the case calls for delving into the Greek mythology, where the gargantuan serpentine water monster ‘Hydra’, with its numerous heads and daunting regenerative traits, was perceived as virtually invincible.Stating that the distinctive and daunting traits of remarkable regenerative ability made Hydra nearly invincible to those who attempted to conquer it, the judge said, “If courts were to permit such HYDRAA to overtake the formidable adversaries who are none other than the citizens of the country, then it will be a death knell for the judiciary, which is guarding the rights of the citizens of the country.”The judge passed the order while hearing a contempt case for allegedly carrying out demolitions in violation of court orders on a 40-acre land belonging to Shanta Sriram Constructions at Lothkunta, Secunderabad. “The damage (demolitions), which it caused, has to be paid from their (HYDRAA) pockets,” the judge added.Advocate general A Sudarshan Reddy urged the court to close the contempt case, while the petitioner’s counsel, M Hareesh Kumar, said the affidavit filed did not explain why structures were demolished, the reason for detaining the petitioner and filing an FIR against him, and sought to impose a tough punishment on the officer.The matter, which came up for hearing in the first hour, was adjourned to the afternoon after the judge expressed displeasure over the affidavit, asking the AG to appear in person.In the afternoon, the judge reiterated to the AG that his presence, though not required in a contempt matter, was sought only because “the contemnor is a senior officer of an IG rank, equal to the secretary, whose duty is to guard only public assets”. “Flouting court orders in this manner is phenomenal. Please enlighten your officers,” Justice Anil Kumar told the AG.Rejecting the apology tendered by the officer for violation of the court orders, the judge observed that “continuing an officer with his contemptuous acts of repeatedly flouting court orders places the rule of law at grave peril”.Calling the officer a “cringing coward”, the court observed that “an apology is an act of contrition and unless offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace, it is shorn of penitence and hence it is liable to be rejected”.“If the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor (officer) finds that the court is going to impose punishment, it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing coward,” the judge said.Observing that HYDRAA’s duty was only to protect public assets like roads, canals, etc., that too of the state govt and those within GHMC, the judge observed that when the petitioner’s case attained finality at various levels and was affirmed by the division bench as well, “why HYDRAA entered the property and carried out demolitions?” the judge asked.Lauding HYDRAA for its objective to protect public assets, the judge noted the agency endured the greatest power in respect of public assets. “But it is also a right law that the need for restraint has to be utmost,” the judge said.The judge noted that all three wings of govt — the legislature, executive and judiciary — must strive to protect constitutional mandates, ensure that no instrumentality of governance demonstrates arbitrariness or illegality, and uphold the rule of law.Citing precedent Supreme Court rulings, the judge held that “disregarding a court’s order might seem bold, but the shadows of its consequences are long and cold”.
