Bharat Rashtra Samithi president and former Telangana chief minister K Chandrashekar Rao has moved the state high court challenging the report of the Justice P C Ghose Commission on Kaleshwaram project irregularities.
KCR filed a petition in the high court questioning the legal validity of the judicial panel, which reportedly held him responsible for alleged irregularities in the construction of the Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla barrages under the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project.
Along with KCR, his nephew and former minister T Harish Rao, IAS officer Smita Sabharwal and former IAS officer S K Joshi had challenged the Ghose commission report.
The petitions were heard by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J M Moinuddin.
The petitioners have questioned both the legality of the commission’s constitution and the manner in which its findings were arrived at.
Senior counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for KCR, argued that the commission violated the principles of natural justice.
He contended that KCR was summoned under Section 5 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act merely as a witness.
“However, the final report allegedly indicted him as being responsible for decisions ranging from site selection and design approval to finalisation of tenders. No notice was issued under Sections 8B and 8C of the Act before adverse findings were recorded against him,” he argued.
The Commission’s report reportedly attributed a loss of Rs 7,500 crore to the state exchequer in connection with structural and procedural lapses in the barrages.
The counsel further argued that none of the documents relied upon by the Commission—primarily government records—were furnished to the petitioner for rebuttal.
He said KCR was also not given an opportunity to cross-examine individuals whose statements may have influenced the findings.
The state government reportedly contended that since the matter has now been referred to the CBI, the petitions challenging the commission may have become infructuous.
However, the petitioners’ counsel countered that the reference to the CBI does not cure procedural illegality in the commission’s functioning.
The high court adjourned the matter to March 2 for the state to advance its detailed arguments.