No violations, Ghose panel inquiry of public importance: State to HC

Hyderabad: In a key hearing on petitions challenging the report of the Justice PC Ghose Commission, Telangana high court on Wednesday heard detailed arguments from the state govt, which contended that former chief minister K Chandrasekhar Rao and other petitioners approached the court only after adverse findings were recorded against them in the inquiry into alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram lift irrigation project.Senior counsel S Niranjan Reddy, appearing for the state in one of the petitions, argued that KCR, former minister T Harish Rao, senior IAS officer Smita Sabharwal, and former chief secretary SK Joshi were fully aware of the purpose of the commission when it was constituted to probe alleged irregularities in the irrigation project. The commission, in its report, made observations on the conduct of these four and several others, holding them responsible for the inquiry findings based on their respective roles during the execution of the project.
Quash report: Petitioners However, Reddy argued that only these ‘hyper sensitive' individuals approached the court alleging procedural violations during the inquiry and claiming an attack on their reputation. The petitioners have sought to quash the commission's report. After the state concluded its submissions, a bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin adjourned the matter to March 12 for the petitioners' counsel to respond to the state's arguments. The bench clarified that no further adjournments would be granted. Terming the inquiry a "matter of staggering public importance," Reddy told the court that the petitioners were aware that the commission was examining a public decision-making process and not targeting any individual. "None of the petitioners are disputing the facts of the project, ballooned costs of the project, CAG report pointing to various irregularities, burden on the exchequer," he argued. He further said that even if the petitioners claim an attack on their reputation, it must be established before the court, as the commission merely made observations about persons who held public office and discharged official duties. Reddy also pointed out that the petitioners challenged the inquiry report only after learning about the adverse findings against them, rather than questioning the GO constituting the commission when it was issued. Continuing arguments in KCR's petition, advocate general A Sudarshan Reddy told the court that when a one-man commission was earlier constituted under Commissions of Inquiry Act to probe power purchases from Chhattisgarh, KCR had immediately approached court while the inquiry was still underway. "But here he waited till the commission gave its report, which clearly shows that he is a well-informed petitioner who knows the litigation and his rights," the AG argued. He further pointed out that KCR had not pleaded in his affidavit that any evidence before the commission was prejudicial to him. "No prejudice is claimed with regard to any document or witness," the AG submitted, stressing the need for the inquiry.‘Tutored witness'Meanwhile, senior counsel P Sri Raghu Ram, appearing for the state in the petition filed by Sabharwal, argued that during the inquiry she behaved like a tutored witness and evaded questions relating to file movement, issuance of GOs, and release of funds. "Nothing prevented her from saying that she is not aware of such things and seeking time. She also volunteered to say that anything else needed, she would come and cooperate," Raghu argued.