Telangana High Court reserves verdict on pleas challenging Kaleshwaram probe report
The Telangana High Court reserved judgment on petitions challenging the Justice PC Ghose Commission report on alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram project, with petitioners arguing that procedural violations and denial of natural justice vitiated the inquiry
Hyderabad: Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin of the Telangana High Court on Thursday continued hearing the batch of writ petitions challenging the report of the Justice PC Ghose Commission on alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project.
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners advanced their reply arguments, reiterating that the challenge to the Commission’s report was primarily on grounds of procedural violations and denial of principles of natural justice. Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for former Chief Minister K Chandrashekhar Rao, submitted that the petitioners were not arguing on the merits or demerits of the Commission’s findings. The challenge, he said, was confined only to procedural lapses that vitiated the inquiry.
He argued that the petitioners had suffered prejudice due to the Commission’s procedure, particularly since the report contained observations affecting their reputation. Even if the State contends that no prejudice was caused, the principles of natural justice, he submitted, require that persons whose reputation is likely to be affected must be given a proper opportunity to defend themselves.
Addressing the State’s argument that the Commission’s report does not have binding or “impelling” force, the counsel submitted that the report nevertheless specifically names certain individuals and recommends that appropriate action may be taken against them. In such circumstances, he argued, procedural safeguards under the law become essential.
During the hearing, the Bench also sought clarification regarding the nature of notices issued by the Commission. The Chief Justice asked whether the notices served on the petitioners were identical to those issued to the other witnesses examined during the inquiry. In response, the counsel submitted that the notices issued were identical in nature and did not indicate that any adverse findings could be recorded against them.
Senior Counsel J Ramachandra Rao, appearing for IAS officer Smita Sabharwal, submitted that the notice issued merely directed her to attend the Commission and provide information. Similarly, Counsel G Tarun Reddy, appearing for SK Joshi, submitted that the communication issued referred only to attending a meeting of the Commission and did not disclose any allegations.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that since the notices only required their presence to furnish information and referred generally to the terms of reference of the Commission, the petitioners were treated merely as witnesses. Therefore, recording adverse findings without issuing specific notices under the relevant provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act violated the principles of natural justice.
After hearing the reply submissions of the petitioners and the arguments of the State, the Bench reserved the matter for judgment. The Court also directed all parties to file their written submissions within two days.
