Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has directed the state government to respond to a writ petition challenging Government Order (GO) 99, which established the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Monitoring and Protection Authority (HYDRA).
The petition was filed by D Lakshmi, who alleged that HYDRA officials unlawfully demolished structures on her property in Ailapur Village, Ameenpur mandal, Sangareddy district, without prior notice or following proper legal procedures.
Lakshmi contended that the authorities did not adhere to legal protocols and failed to provide any notification before their actions.
In his response, Justice Lakshman emphasized the necessity for the state government to comply with legal procedures and to review pertinent documents related to the property, including the sale deed and necessary permissions, before taking any further steps.
The petition argued that GO 99, issued under the executive powers of Article 162 of the Constitution, conflicts with existing statutory laws.
It asserted that executive actions must be consistent with statutory provisions, claiming that any administrative orders that contradict these laws are invalid.
Furthermore, the petition highlights that the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) Act does not authorize the government to delegate its statutory powers to another authority.
Consequently, GO 99, which grants HYDRA powers typically reserved for the GHMC, is said to overstep the government’s jurisdiction, as statutory functions cannot be delegated unless explicitly permitted by law.
The Government Order (GO) 99 has faced criticism for granting the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Monitoring and Protection Authority (HYDRAA) extensive discretionary powers without providing clear guidelines, which some argue makes the order unsustainable.
Additionally, the petitioner noted that while the GO states that HYDRAA should be led by an officer from the All India Services, the authority is currently headed by an individual who does not fulfill this requirement.In light of the state’s response, Justice Lakshman has instructed the Additional Advocate General (AG) to appear in court.
During the proceedings, the Additional AG characterized HYDRAA as a central agency tasked with coordinating efforts among various departments and providing support.
However, the Additional AG requested additional time to address the petitioner’s concerns comprehensively.
Justice Lakshman approved this request and ordered that authorities must not interfere with the petitioner’s property until legal procedures are properly observed. The case is scheduled for further hearing on September 30, 2024.
Follow on Twitter | Posted by P N Sree Harsha | 
