Continuing its arguments against the challenge to the P C Ghose Commission of Inquiry report on the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project, the state government on Thursday told the Telangana High Court that the petitioners cannot claim they were not issued notice under the Commissions of Inquiry Act.
Over the last week, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin has been hearing the arguments of former chief minister K Chandrashekar Rao, former minister T Harish Rao, former chief secretary S K Joshi, and former secretary to the chief minister’s office Smita Sabharwal, and the state government’s objections to their contentions.
The petitioners’ primary contention revolves around the non-issuance of notices under sections 8B and 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, which are crucial safeguards ensuring procedural fairness, allowing one to be heard and to respond, and to cross-examine witnesses.
On Thursday, Advocate General A Sudershan Reddy referred to a writ petition filed before the Telangana High Court in 2024 by K Chandrashekar Rao questioning the constitution of a commission of inquiry under Justice (Retd) L Narasimha Reddy to look into the irregularities in the procurement of power from Chhattisgarh by the Telangana discoms without any competitive bidding, where it was contended that the commission does not have authority to issue notice under 8B and 8C under the Act.
While noting that the petitioner’s case was dismissed, Reddy underlined that this writ petition was filed during the pendency of the proceedings of the commission and not after the report was submitted and stated that the petitioner was aware of the legal proceedings under sections 8B and 8C.
He further contended that, in the present case, the petitioner received the notice under Section 8B, though it was not named as such, understood the notice as issued under the section, participated in the proceedings before the inquiry commission and “now cannot go back and say it was not a notice issued under Section 8B and his participation was not as requested under Section 8B.”
On Monday, Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi stressed this aspect by stating that “the omission to mention a provision formally does not invalidate the order or action if otherwise the entire action is traceable to that provision anyway.”
Reddy also underscored that the petitioner did not plead anywhere in the affidavit that the evidence given by any witness or any document that was produced was prejudicial to him. On Tuesday, he said in court that the commission’s findings were based solely on the official records and government documents available and cannot be faulted.
‘Petitioners’ arguments on limited anvil of defamation’
Appearing for the state in the petition filed by S K Joshi, senior counsel S Niranjan Reddy pointed out that the petitioners have not disputed the facts mentioned in the government order appointing the Commission of Inquiry regarding the cost burden, cost of power burden or the cost of interest burden on debt or the CAG report or the findings of the commission.
“All the arguments by all four petitioners are on the limited anvil of defamation and damage to their reputation. They have not gone into the merits of the report as they understand they have a very limited argument to make that reputation has suffered,” Niranjan Reddy said.
“In this inquiry report, there is no finding with regard to anything personal to them outside the public duties they discharged,” Niranjan Reddy said, adding that the petitioners in their reply do not say why the commission is wrong in identifying official lapses or excesses on their part.
He said the government has put “its best foot forward” by taking a high moral ground in appointing a commission of inquiry to identify the deficiencies and help itself. Such an inquiry, resulting in the government arriving at a conclusion, he said, meant that “we will not have another white elephant staring at us in the future,” and that the government could take some administrative measures. “That is the purpose of this inquiry. And not go after four or five people,” he said.
Senior counsel P Sri Raghu Ram, appearing for the Telangana Government in the petition filed by IAS officer Smita Sabharwal, said the officer was given a reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations mentioned in the Commission’s terms of reference, and she only narrated the duties of the secretary when asked about subject matters before the Commission of Inquiry.
The officer remained “evasive” and “reticent”, he said, adding that she was found to have not complied with the business rules.
After recording the arguments of the state counsel, the matter was adjourned for the petitioners’ side to present their replies on March 12.
The State Government argued that the PC Ghose Commission’s findings are purely administrative and not defamatory. They maintained that because the inquiry was based on official records—not personal testimonies—strict notices under Sections 8B and 8C weren't required. (File) 
Share
