The Telangana High Court has issued a strong warning to the Hyderabad Road Development Agency Authority (HYDRAA) Commissioner, AV Ranganath, stating that a Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) will be issued if he fails to appear in person at the next hearing scheduled on December 5, 2025.
The warning came during the hearing of a Contempt Case related to alleged violations at the Bathukammakunta (Bagh Amberpet) lake. A petition was filed by A. Sudhakar Reddy, who claimed that HYDRAA had carried out unauthorised works on the disputed land despite earlier court orders restricting any alterations.
Alleged Violation of Court Orders
The petitioner presented photographs and documents showing that HYDRAA allegedly undertook “Substantial Alterations” between June and October 2025. These changes reportedly included land modification and development activities beyond what the Court had previously permitted.
Earlier the High Court had allowed only Limited pre-monsoon works strictly aimed at preventing flooding with clear instructions that the disputed land was not to be disturbed. The petitioner accused the agency of exceeding those limits and disregarding judicial orders.
Commissioner’s Absence Draws Court’s Ire
During the latest hearing Commissioner AV Ranganath did not appear in person. Instead, he sought exemption from personal appearance citing urgent public duties related to disaster management in Bachupally.
The Court rejected the exemption request stating that Attendance in a Contempt Case is Mandatory regardless of official responsibilities. The bench expressed displeasure remarking that government officers “cannot take court directions lightly” and that continuous absence amounts to disrespecting judicial authority.
The Court also dismissed a request for blanket exemption from future hearings.
Court Issues Stern Ultimatum
The Division Bench made it clear that failure to attend the next hearing will result in the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against the HYDRAA chief. The judges emphasised that the dignity of the Court must be upheld and that compliance with its orders is not optional.
Possible Wider Impact
The case is being closely watched as it could influence how development agencies carry out works near sensitive water bodies. The Court highlighted that restoration and flood prevention works Cannot be used as a Cover for unauthorised land modification.
The warning to the Commissioner underscores that even high ranking officials may face personal consequences for non compliance in contempt matters.
