While adjourning the next hearing by five weeks, the court said that the government did not intend to take action on the report, and hence there was no need for any interim directions
Published Aug 22, 2025 | 2:21 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 22, 2025 | 2:21 PM
The Telangana High Court. (Wikimedia Commons)
Synopsis: KCR, challenging the report, had said that he should have been given the opportunity available under Section 8-B and Section 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. It was not within the ambit of the Commission to prejudicially affect any person’s reputation under the pretext of inquiry without allowing him to be heard.
The Telangana High Court on Friday, 22 August, ordered the immediate removal of the Justice PC Ghose Commission’s full report and its summary from the public domain.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice GM Mohinuddin ordered the removal of the report on the alleged irregularities in the construction of the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project, saying it was premature since the report has yet to be tabled in the Assembly.
The high court issued the order after hearing two petitions filed by BRS supremo and former chief minister K Chandrashekar Rao and former irrigation Minister T Harish Rao, seeking the suspension of the Justice PC Ghose Commission’s report.
The court adjourned the hearing after the Advocate General A Sudarshan Reddy conveyed the government’s decision that it would act on the report only after discussing it in the Assembly.
The high court, which took up the hearing on the petitions on Thursday, 21 August, adjourned it to Friday after the Advocate General submitted that he needed to consult the government on the court’s query whether the state intended to take action on the report shortly or only after discussing it in the Assembly.
The court gave three weeks to the state government and the PC Ghose Commission to file counters, and one week to the petitioners to file replies to the counters.
While adjourning the next hearing by five weeks, the court said that the government did not intend to take action on the report, and hence there was no need for any interim directions.
The former chief minister had sought suspension of the report mainly on the grounds that he was not given an opportunity to defend himself or submit evidence in support of his claims before the Commission, which, he said, was in violation of the principles of natural justice.
In his petition, KCR said that he should have been given the opportunity available under Section 8-B and Section 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. It was not within the ambit of the Commission to prejudicially affect any person’s reputation under the pretext of inquiry without allowing him to be heard.
KCR drew the court’s attention to how the Commission had violated the provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, under which it was set up, while finalising the report.
He said that the terms of reference of the Commission presumed negligence, irregularities, and lacunae in the planning, designing, and construction of the Medigadda, Annaram, and Sundilla barrages of the Kaleshwaram project.
KCR also pointed out that it was incumbent upon the Commission to allow a person before any comment is made or opinion is expressed in its report, which is likely to prejudicially affect the person. Needless to emphasise that failure to comply with the principles of natural justice renders the action non-est (legally not valid) as well as the consequences thereof.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
