Telangana high court verdict on pleas against PC Ghose report on April 8

HYDERABAD: The Telangana high court is scheduled to deliver its verdict on April 8 regarding petitions filed by former chief minister K Chandrasekhar Rao and others. The petitions challenge the Justice PC Ghose commission report into alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram lift irrigation project.A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin concluded hearings on Thursday and reserved the matters for orders after six months of extensive arguments from both the petitioners and the state.The petitioners, who include KCR, former minister T Harish Rao, senior IAS officer Smita Sabharwal and former chief secretary SK Joshi, sought to suspend the commission's report, alleging significant procedural violations and damage to their reputations. Senior counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu, representing one of the petitioners, clarified that while they do not dispute the state's authority to form an inquiry commission, they are contesting the failure to follow mandatory legal procedures. He argued that the commission's findings appeared to follow a state-directed agenda and that the petitioners were unaware of the specific allegations against them until the report was completed.Regarding the project's technical issues, Naidu noted that the inquiry was prompted by a single pillar sinking among 220, characterising the state's reaction as disproportionate. He defended the project's rising costs by citing similar trends in other irrigation works across the Telugu states, such as Nagarjuna Sagar and Sriram Sagar Project (SRSP), which were taken up by the current govt. He further argued against claims that the project was a colossal failure that never took off and that public money went down the drain, pointing out that water from the project is currently being utilised for Hyderabad's water needs and ‘the state govt's pet project Musi river rejuvenation'. He also highlighted that central auditors verified an increase in irrigated land, contributing to the state's status as the rice bowl of India.The counsel also challenged the state for publicising the report through presentations and press releases before it was presented to the assembly, arguing that this prejudiced the petitioners. Furthermore, counsel for Smita Sabharwal and SK Joshi argued that their clients were summoned for ‘meetings' rather than being served proper statutory notices. They maintained that this process violated their fundamental right to reputation and professional standing. During the proceedings, the bench questioned whether the notices issued to 119 other witnesses followed a similar format and noted the legal implications of their classification as ‘commission witnesses'.