Telangana Defends Ghose Panel Report on Kaleshwaram in HC

Appearing for the government, Advocate General A. Sudershan Reddy and senior counsel S. Niranjan Reddy argued that the commission’s report merely pointed out lapses and excesses in the planning and execution of the project and did not attribute personal malafides to the petitioners.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing petitions filed by K. Chandrashekar Rao, T. Harish Rao, senior IAS officer Smitha Sabharwal and former IAS officer S.K. Joshi challenging the commission’s report and seeking directions to prevent the government from taking coercive action based on its findings. Counsel for the state argued that the report only identified administrative lapses and did not make imputations regarding the character or personal integrity of the petitioners. The observations in the report, he said, could not be construed as defamation.

Senior counsel Niranjan Reddy submitted that an experts’ committee of engineers had earlier indicated that construction of the Medigadda barrage at the chosen location was not viable, but the then government proceeded with the decision. The commission, he argued, had only recorded the errors committed in that context.

He further contended that the government was empowered to constitute a commission of inquiry on issues of public importance. In this case, the commission was formed following allegations of irregularities in the execution of the project, which has had a significant financial impact on the state.

According to the submissions, the project was initially intended to irrigate 19.63 lakh acres at an estimated cost of ₹81,911 crore. However, the expenditure later escalated to around ₹1.47 lakh crore, imposing a heavy burden on the state exchequer.

Referring to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), the counsel said the audit had raised concerns over the financial viability of the project. The report noted that around ₹7.5 lakh had been spent per acre for irrigation, while the state was paying nearly ₹12,826 crore annually as interest on project-related loans.

The interest component alone amounted to about ₹60,000 per acre, while around ₹50,000 per acre was being spent on electricity charges for operating the lift irrigation system, the court was told. The CAG report also suggested that the project might not be economically beneficial.

The Advocate General further submitted that the project was executed after redesigning the earlier Pranahita-Chevella Lift Irrigation Scheme, resulting in higher electricity consumption.

According to the submissions, the redesign increased annual electricity requirements by about 5,643 million units, adding roughly ₹3,555 crore per year to power expenditure. It was also stated that ₹767 crore spent earlier on the Pranahita-Chevella project became redundant after the redesign.

The Advocate General told the court that works worth ₹25,049 crore were awarded in 2018 even before the Detailed Project Report received approval from the Central Water Commission.  After the state government concluded its arguments, the division bench granted time to counsel for the petitioners to present their rejoinder submissions. The matter will be taken up again on March 12.