Telangana High Court asks Government to respond on HYDRAA

Justice K Lakshman of the Telangana High Court has directed the State Government to respond to a writ petition challenging Government Order (GO) 99, establishing the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Monitoring and Protection Authority (HYDRAA).

The writ petition was filed by D Lakshmi, who alleged that HYDRAA authorities had illegally demolished rooms on her property in Ailapur Village in Ameenpur mandal of Sangareddy District, without prior notice or following proper procedures. The petitioner claimed that the authorities failed to adhere to legal protocols and did not issue any notice before taking action.

In response to the petition, Justice Lakshman instructed the State Government to ensure that legal procedures are followed and to review the documents related to the property, including the sale deed and permissions obtained from relevant authorities, before any further action is taken.

The petition argued that GO 99, issued under the executive powers of Article 162 of the Constitution, conflicted with existing statutory laws. It asserts that executive actions must comply with statutory provisions, and any administrative orders that contradict these statutes are considered void. The petition contended that the GHMC Act did not



allow the government to delegate its statutory powers to another authority. GO 99, which granted HYDRAA powers typically reserved for the GHMC, is argued to be beyond the government’s jurisdiction, as statutory functions cannot be delegated unless explicitly permitted by the statute.

The GO is criticised for granting HYDRAA broad discretionary powers without clear guidelines. This lack of specificity is claimed to render the order unsustainable. Furthermore, the petitioner also pointed out that GO specified that HYDRAA should be led by an officer from the All India Services, but the authority is currently headed by someone who does not meet this criterion. Dissatisfied with the state’s response, Justice Lakshman has directed the Additional Advocate General to appear before the court. During the proceedings, the Additional AG described HYDRAA as a nodal agency responsible for coordinating with other departments and providing assistance. However, the Additional AG requested more time to address the petitioner’s concerns in detail.

Justice Lakshman granted this request and instructed the authorities to refrain from interfering with the petitioner’s property until legal procedures are properly followed. The case is set for further hearing on September 30, 2024.