Kaleshwaram probe report row: Telangana High Court adjourns hearing to September 10
Telangana HC heard a plea by former Irrigation Secretary Shailendra Kumar Joshi challenging the Ghose Commission’s report on Kaleshwaram project irregularities. The bench questioned how Joshi accessed the report and directed both sides to file affidavits
Hyderabad: A bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin on Wednesday heard a writ petition filed by Shailendra Kumar Joshi, former Principal Secretary of Irrigation Department, seeking to quash the report of Justice (Retd.) PC Ghose Judicial Commission that probed alleged irregularities in the execution of Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project.
The petitioner contended that the Commission’s findings against him were delivered in violation of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, as mandatory notices under Section 8B were not issued. Senior Advocate Avinash Desai, appearing for Joshi, argued that the Commission’s adverse remarks were made even though Joshi was only summoned as a witness. He sought directions that no action be taken against the petitioner based on what he called a report that was “contrary to the principles of natural justice and fundamental rights”.
He explained that Joshi had obtained the report after parts of it including a 60-page executive summary were released through a PowerPoint presentation by ministers and introduced in the Assembly.
The report, he said, was downloaded in this context.
The bench, however, asked pointedly: “If it was introduced in the Assembly, it should only be with the MLAs. How did you get it? We had already ordered the summary to be removed from the public domain. How then did you download it?” The Court directed Joshi to file an affidavit explaining how exactly the report came into his possession.
On its part, the government’s counsel maintained that the Ghose Commission report was never uploaded in the public domain. If required, he said, a written explanation would be filed.
Observing that it must first be determined whether the petitioner was truly an “affected party”, the bench directed both sides to file affidavits, Joshi on how he accessed the report, and the government on whether and where it was uploaded. The case was adjourned to September 10 for further hearing.
