Damagundam reserve forest land case: Telangana HC raps state for failing to file counter-affidavit
Slamming the government for repeatedly seeking adjournments, the Court warned that continued non-compliance would attract penalties
By Newsmeter Network
Hyderabad: Telangana High Court has come down heavily on the state government for failing to file its counter-affidavit in a PIL challenging the transfer of the Damagundam reserve forest land for a radar project.
Slamming the government for repeatedly seeking adjournments, the Court warned that continued non-compliance would attract penalties.
Court terms Govt’s conduct ‘negligent’
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Mohiuddin expressed deep dissatisfaction with the state’s prolonged delay, despite several extensions granted earlier.
The court said the government was displaying a “negligent and careless approach” by repeatedly taking time without submitting the required affidavit. It also demanded a clear explanation for the continued delay.
Two-week final deadline issued
Issuing a stern warning, the Bench gave the state one final opportunity of two weeks to file its counter-affidavit. Failure to do so, the court said, would lead to the imposition of costs.
The Bench further directed the petitioner’s counsel to file a reply affidavit within one week of the State’s submission. The matter has been adjourned to December 15 for the next hearing.
PIL questions transfer of 2,900 acres of forest land
The PIL, filed in 2020 by the Damagundam Forest Protection JAC, challenges the government’s order allocating 2,900 acres of Damagundam reserve forest in Vikarabad district for the establishment of a radar centre.
Amicus curiae and senior advocate Vivek Jain had earlier informed the court that although the Centre filed a counter, it failed to address critical issues such as environmental safeguards, wildlife protection measures, and the status of the expert committee constituted for environmental review.
Court warns against taking its leniency for granted
During the hearing, both the Centre and the state sought additional time. The court expressed anger over the repeated requests and cautioned the authorities not to take the court’s leniency for granted.
