‘If Kaleshwaram failed, why use its water for Musi?: Defence questions Telangana Govt over Musi Rejuvenation plans in HC

The primary contention of the petitioners, 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, concerns 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.

Leading the defence, senior counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu said the Musi River rejuvenation project, “the pet project of the present government,” has Mallannasagar as the source. “About Rs 7,700 crore is to be invested (in the Musi Rejuvenation project) based on this project (KLIP) and the water supplied by it,” he said.

Naidu added that “any element of failure is just making a mountain out of a mole hill”, and stated that only one of the 220 pillars faced subsidence due to unprecedented rain in one particular year that recorded the highest rainfall in history.

About the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report that flagged the project as “economically unviable”, he cited the example of the 2G scam case that was based on a CAG report, and called it “a damp squib which never exploded”.

The Supreme Court has held that CAG reports have no primitive (definitive) value, he added. Replying to the state’s claim regarding the “ballooned costs” of the project, Naidu said the cost of the Nagarjunasagar project jumped 9.7 times, whereas KLIP’s costs escalated only 1.59 times, which was the lowest among all.

Stating that the area under irrigation doubled under KLIP, Naidu added that KCR was called the “Bhageeratha” of the state for conceiving and implementing KLIP, bringing water to parched lands, and turning the state into a rice bowl. On the state’s claim that the inquiry report does not apply proprio vigore (by its own force), Naidu argued that the report concluded by naming the petitioner as personally liable, and that appropriate action should be taken against them.

Naidu submitted that the petitioners never questioned the vires of the Commission of Inquiries Act or the state’s power to constitute a commission of inquiry to look into KLIP. He said the petitioners were aggrieved only by procedural violations. He concluded by stressing that procedural safeguards that are “inviolable” have been breached, and no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioners to defend themselves.

Senior counsel J Ramchandra Rao and Advocate Tarun G Reddy also submitted their replies to the arguments of the state counsel.

Following this, the bench reserved the matter for the pronouncement of judgment on April 8. Meanwhile, the interim protection earlier granted to the petitioners will continue.