Hyderabad: Remanding back a case to the lower court, the Supreme Court has directed Telangana high court to examine whether a gate, fence and retaining wall erected by Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA) at Bathukammakunta in Amberpet should be allowed to remain at the site, saying it will not examine the validity of the petitioner’s justification at this stage.The court also ordered high court’s March 2026 order, holding HYDRAA chief AV Ranganath guilty of contempt of court, would remain suspended until the high court decides the issue.A division bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu passed the order on July 17 while disposing of a special leave petition (SLP) filed by Ranganath, who moved the Supreme Court challenging the order of the high court in a contempt case.The bench further clarified that if the high court finds the petitioner’s justification to be invalid, the suspension of the contempt finding would automatically stand lifted, enabling the high court to pass appropriate orders.The apex court further directed the high court to decide the issue in accordance with law at the earliest and also dispose of the connected civil appeal expeditiously.The contempt case was filed against Ranganath by Aedla Sudhakar Reddy, a businessman who has been claiming ownership of the seven-acre disputed land. Sudhakar Reddy claimed that in violation of high court orders to maintain a status quo at the site, HYDRAA developed it and erected equipment, gates, walls, etc.The apex court noted that, in compliance with its earlier order on April 27, 2026, the petitioner filed an affidavit stating that he substantially complied with the high court’s directions by removing the children’s play equipment, open-air gym equipment, inauguration plaque and information board from the site.The petitioner, however, sought to justify retaining the gate, fence and the retaining wall, the court observed, while stating that instead of deciding the validity of that explanation itself, the interests of justice would be better served if the high court examined the justification and decided whether those structures should be permitted to remain.The apex court also allowed respondent Sudhakar Reddy to file objections to the compliance affidavit before the high court within two weeks and disposed of the matter.
