‘Wrong in putting cart before the horse’: What former Telangana minister Harish Rao told HC on Kaleshwaram probe panel

Senior advocate C Aryama Sundaram, representing Harish Rao, touched upon the 2007 announcement of the then Andhra Pradesh government to utilise water from the Godavari River and construct the Dr Ambedkar Lift Irrigation Project, which had several interstate issues. Referring to letters exchanged between the Andhra Pradesh chief minister and his Maharashtra counterpart and letters between the Central Water Commission and the chief engineer about the concerns over various interstate issues involved, the senior counsel submitted that the change of project site was an executive decision on the recommendation of WAPCOS, a central government PSU, and not a unilateral one.

Finding fault with the inquiry ordered by the state government after a pillar subsided in the project’s Medigadda barrage in 2023, Sundaram said that the inquiry was “motivated and pinpointed at culpability and not erroneous decisions”. He contended that the government gave the commission a set of conclusions to determine whether they warranted action, rather than a clean slate to work with. “Justice Ghose did exactly what he was asked to do. He adjudicated,” the senior counsel said.

Referring to various Supreme Court judgments, Sundaram said the commission is a fact-finding body and has no power to enforce the inquiry report, and that the inquiry could not be treated as a judicial inquiry. “What the government has stated (in the government order) is what the commission should have found. The commission has been given a specific brief. Therefore, the entire proceedings are legally biased,” he added.

Sundaram submitted that on May 20, 2025, a summons under sections 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was issued to the petitioner to give evidence as a “witness” and the notice had nothing to do with an “accused”. He contended that Harish Rao was not given a reasonable opportunity under Section 8 B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, divulging details of what is held against him, the source of those charges, and the material on which it is based, and was not given an opportunity to reply. “Such a notice under 8 B was never given, and the findings were arrived at against me,” Sundaram said, adding that Harish Rao was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses who deposed against him, as provided under Section 8 C of the Act.

Sundaram, pointing out that the Commission report was condensed into 60 pages and shared with the media through a PowerPoint presentation before completion of due process, argued that the same affected reputations and violated principles of natural justice. The senior counsel concluded by stating that the inquiry report be quashed in its entirety with directions that no findings be used against Rao or to initiate any further proceedings.

‘Grave irregularities’

Senior counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for KCR, submitted that the grievances of the petitioner were identical to the other petitioner but much worse. For paucity of time, the court adjourned the matter for further hearing on Friday and extended the interim protection granted to the petitioners earlier.

The PC Ghose Commission had concluded “grave irregularities across conceptualisation, planning, design, construction, award of contract, execution, O&M, quality control, and financial mismanagement” in the construction of the Medigadda, Annaram, and Sundilla barrages of the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project. The petitioners have approached the court soon after the PC Ghose Commission of Inquiry report was forwarded to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on September 1 last year.