KCR, Smita Sabharwal Urge High Court To Block Action Based on Ghose Panel Report

 Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Friday heard arguments on behalf of former chief minister K. Chandrashekar Rao, senior IAS officer Smita Sabharwal and former chief secretary Shailendra Kumar Joshi who challenged the report of the Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose commission on the Kaleshwaram lift irrigation scheme (KLIS) irregularities.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin adjourned the matter to Monday for the state government’s arguments.

The petitions were filed by Chandrashekar Rao, former minister T. Harish Rao, Joshi and Sabharwal sought directions to the state government to not take action against them based on the commission’s report, particularly in the wake of the discussion held in the State Assembly.

Senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for Chandrashekar Rao, argued that the commission had acted illegally by levelling allegations against the petitioner without following due process. He submitted that if any witness mentioned the petitioner’s name, notices should have been issued along with the relevant documents and an opportunity given to present his explanation.

Naidu contended that Chandrashekar Rao was summoned only as a witness under the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act but adverse remarks were made against him in the report. Without supplying the attributions or allegations made against the petitioner and not giving him the opportunity of cross-examination of such witnesses, the commission came to the conclusion that the decisions were taken by the petitioner Chandrashekar Rao, unilaterally, senior counsel argued.

He submitted that the commission was not a court and its report cannot be treated as a verdict. According to senior counsel, serious allegations were levelled in the report damaging the petitioner’s reputation and certain ministers made public comments on the basis of the report to gain political advantage. He urged the court to quash both the constitution of the commission and the report.

Senior advocate J. Ramachandra Rao, appearing for Smita Sabharwal, argued that the remarks in the report suggesting that she had failed to perform her duties were unjustified and had caused serious damage to her reputation and dignity.

Advocate Taran Gopal Reddy, representing Shailendra Kumar Joshi, submitted that the government had not directed the commission to determine the reasons for the collapse of the Medigadda barrage pillar. He argued that the terms of reference only required identification of irregularities and fixation of responsibility and that it was not reasonable to conclude in the report that the business rules were violated.