HYDRAA not above law, not supercop: HC

Hyderabad: Telangana high court came down heavily on the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Protection Agency ( HYDRAA ), observing that its officials appeared to believe they were "a class apart" and warning that they could not place themselves above the law or act beyond the authority vested in them.

"They are not super cops of governance (in their field), they cannot act beyond the purview of law," Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti remarked while criticising HYDRAA for entering a private property at Lothkunta, Alwal, despite earlier court orders protecting the landowner's possession.

Taking a serious view of the agency's conduct, the judge said HYDRAA, as part of the state administration, remained subject to the rule of law and could not assume extraordinary powers.

"This court is of the opinion that HYDRAA's actions are a flagrant violation of the orders of this court. It is apparent that the HYDRAA officials are of the notion that they are a class apart. I am afraid they are not so and they cannot be; they are a part of governance and remain so," the judge observed while disposing of contempt cases filed by Shanta Sriram Constructions Private Ltd.

The court clarified that HYDRAA's mandate is limited to protecting public assets such as roads, drains, water bodies, parks and other govt properties, and that its authority cannot extend beyond the boundaries prescribed by law.

It further ruled that HYDRAA officials could not intervene in disputes involving private property merely on the basis of a complaint lodged by a private organisation.

The contempt cases arose from allegations by the petitioner that HYDRAA officials entered the disputed land and interfered with its peaceful possession despite the state govt having suffered setbacks in a writ appeal, civil suit and first appeal concerning the property.

HYDRAA, however, submitted that its officials had visited the site after receiving a representation from ‘Society to Save Rocks' organisation.

Rejecting any justification for overstepping legal limits, the court observed that "officers may be enthusiastic to act in the interest of the state, but they have to be within the four corners of law, any deviation from law would not only be an overreach, but would also invite the wrath of the courts."

The court also held that HYDRAA's actions in the present matter amounted to a breach of an undertaking previously given before the court that orders passed in the long-running land dispute would be complied with.

Further, after recording an undertaking from HYDRAA's counsel that officials would not enter the property in future, the court directed the agency and its personnel not to violate the assurance given to the court.

It restrained them from entering the land and from disturbing the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, before closing the contempt proceedings.

Emphasising the binding nature of assurances given on behalf of the state, the court maintained: "It has no hesitation to hold that if any of the law offices of the court (additional advocates general, special govt pleader, govt pleader, etc,) undertake that state authorities would comply with the orders passed by a court of law, it would bind ‘every department', unless one of the departments has a grievance valid in law."