Reiterating that the PC Ghose Commission of Inquiry that probed the alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project was constituted as matters of public importance were involved, the Telangana Government on Tuesday informed the High Court that the findings were recorded by the commission only based on official records from central and state governments, and agencies such as the National Dam Safety Authority, Central Water Commission, and also report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

“No evidence of any person is taken for the purpose of holding anything against anyone. It is only based on government documents (that the findings were recorded),” Advocate General A Sudershan Reddy submitted before the Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin. Over the last week, the bench has been hearing arguments in a batch of writ petitions by former chief minister K Chandrashekar Rao, former minister T Harish Rao, former chief secretary S K Joshi, and former secretary to the chief minister Smita Sabharwal seeking to quash the inquiry report.

The petitioners have earlier argued that they were not given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations or cross-examine the witnesses.

The PC Ghose Commission had concluded “grave irregularities across conceptualisation, planning, design, construction, award of contract, execution, O&M, quality control, and financial mismanagement” in the construction of the Medigadda, Annaram, and Sundilla barrages of the KLIP.

The petitioners approached the court soon after the Commission’s report was forwarded to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on September 1 last year. The court had, meanwhile, granted interim protection to the petitioners against “any adverse actions” based on the findings of the report.

On Monday, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the state and argued that the case of the petitioners was “a technical retrospective ambush as an afterthought” and stated that if the petitioners’ pleas are even partially accepted by the court, it would mean “a denudation of the state government’s power to act in public interest to find facts on a matter of public importance”.

During the hearing on Tuesday, Advocate General Reddy referred to previous judgments of the Supreme Court to emphasise that the state has the power to constitute a commission of inquiry and that the terms of reference can never be said to be pre-meditated or pre-judged in any circumstances. He was responding to one of the contentions of the petitioners that the formation of the panel was “wrong in putting the cart before the horse” as it listed out through the terms of reference the conclusions that the commission should have arrived at.

To a pointed query from the bench regarding the use of the term “judicial inquiry” in the government order appointing the commission, the AG replied that “it is just a name that was given because a (retired) judge is appointed.” Adding that the commission was appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, he said the commission has only exercised the powers vested in it by the Act, acted within the scope of powers, and submitted the report.

CAG report termed KLIP economically unviable  

The AG also referred to the CAG report of February 2024, which found that the project was, ab initio, economically unviable. Quoting from the CAG report, the AG said the cost of the project is likely to exceed Rs 1,47,427.41 crore, as against the cost of Rs 81,911.01 crore projected to the CWC. The report also stated that “the benefit-cost ratio was inflated” and considering the latest likely project cost, BCR worked out to 0.52, “which meant that every rupee spent on the project would yield only 52 paise”.

The AG then pointed to the CAG report’s finding that the peak energy demand when all the pumps were operated was more than the average daily energy availed in the entire State (2021-22) and hence providing power to lift irrigation schemes will pose a challenge to the State.

“The absence of a comprehensive plan duly spelling out the sources of funds for a project of this scale, which will have a long-term impact on the finances of the State, is an indication of improper planning,” the report had found.

Due to paucity of time, the matter was then adjourned for further hearing on Thursday.