‘Castigated, vilified’: KCR asks Telangana HC to quash PC Ghose Commission report on Kaleshwaram Project irregularities 

The report had found “grave irregularities across conceptualization, planning, design, construction, award of contract, execution, O&M, quality control, and financial mismanagement” in the construction of the Medigadda, Annaram, and Sundilla barrages.

Last year, the court granted interim protection to the petitioners against ‘any adverse action’ based on the findings of the report.

They had approached the court soon after the inquiry report was forwarded to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on September 1 last year.

The state’s affidavit has stated that the “critical Administrative Approvals (AAs) for the construction of Medigadda, Annaram, and Sundilla barrages (G.O.Rt. Nos. 231, 232, and 233, all dated 01.03.2016) were never placed before or ratified by the Council of Ministers.” This alleged negligence, it said, resulted in a huge financial loss to the State exchequer of “more than 7,500 crores of rupees” from the site shift and tunnel works alone.

‘Not even a piece of paper’ supplied as evidence

During the hearing, Naidu underscored the finding of the commission that the decision regarding the construction of barrages at Medigadda, Annaram, and Sundilla was “solely of the then chief minister”, even though an expert committee had studied the merits and demerits of constructing barrages at those sites and recommended against their viability.

“Not even a piece of paper” as evidence was supplied to the petitioner as against the commission’s claims that these findings were based on the official records that were made available to the petitioner, the senior counsel stated.

According to him, it was not the inquiry report per se that needed to be examined, but the manner in which it had come into existence and the procedural violations associated with it. “Then, the question that begs an answer is this – is the procedure mandatory or directory? Then, if it is mandatory, has it been substantially complied with? If not, have I waived my right to objection by way of participation?” KCR’s counsel asked.

According to him, fundamental rights can never be waived as “the conduct cannot be an obstruction on the path”.

Further, to the contention of the state that writ petition has become infructuous as the investigation has been handed over to CBI, Naidu responded that the reference to CBI is lis pendens (pending suit) and interim protection has been granted by the court.

The state has contended that the petitioner chose to present his version of events before the commission and now cannot retrospectively claim to have been misled or non-compliance with Section 8B of the Commission of Inquiry Act of 1952, which mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard and respond.

The challenge of the petitioner over non-issuance of notice under section 8B or 8C is untenable, the state’s counter-affidavit has stated. Naidu also questioned the contentions of the state in their counter-affidavit that the petitioner was aware of the system or procedures, and thereby acquiesced in the procedure adopted by the commission.

Along the lines of the submissions made by senior counsel C Aryama Sundaram, who argued for Harish Rao on Wednesday, Naidu reiterated that the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity under Section 8B and 8C of the Act.

He contended that the petitioner was treated as a “witness” and nowhere in the notice was the petitioner given any indication of any evidence against him that could prejudicially affect his reputation. Noting that the commission also didn’t provide any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine any of the witnesses, Naidu stated that the commission violated the mandatory provision under section 8B and 8C of the Act as well as principles of natural justice.

J.Ramachandra Rao, Senior Counsel for IAS officer Smita Sabharwal, contended that all that his client was questioned about when she appeared before the commission was administrative matters, none of which were allegations against her. He also submitted that the summons notice did not mention any allegations against her and that the findings of the commission were unilateral. Similarly, Tarun G Reddy, counsel for ex-bureaucrat S K Joshi, argued that neither were any allegations put to his client calling for an explanation nor was he given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself before his reputation was maligned.