Telangana Government Gives Panel Vital KLIS Approval Papers

Hyderabad: The claims before the Justice P.C. Ghose commission that decisions pertaining to the Kaleshwaram scheme were taken by the then BRS Cabinet are likely to become a significant aspect in the investigations, with the panel receiving some as-yet unspecified documents that are believed to be related to the issue from the Revanth Reddy government.

The claims that the KILS decisions were taken by the BRS government were made by former ministers Etala Rajendar, T. Harish Rao, and the then chief minister K. Chandrashekar Rao before the panel.

The aspect attained importance as these claims – first made by Rajendar —were immediately rejected by some Congress leaders, as well by agriculture minister Tummala Nageswara Rao who declared that there were no Cabinet approvals and announced that he would write on the matter to the commission.

Nageswara Rao was speaking on the issue based on what he said he knew as a minister in the then BRS government, as well as a member of a Cabinet sub-committee on the project, along with Rajendar and Harish Rao.

During cross-examinations by the commission of current and former irrigation department engineers, as well as senior IAS officers, several of them had pointed their fingers at the government as the one that took the crucial decisions. These officials, when asked what the word government meant, had responded that it either meant Harish Rao, the then irrigation minister, or Chandrashekar Rao, the then chief minister.

Sources said that the question whether the project and its various aspects had formal Cabinet approvals or not, could become significant in terms of procedural requirements to be followed by the government, and the commission’s findings on this could have an impact on the final report and the role of individuals in the project’s planning, and decision-making roles.

The sources said soon after the commission wrote to the government if it wanted to submit any additional information on June 13 that might throw some light on the issue of cabinet approvals for the project, it received several documents from the office of the principal secretary. “The commission did not specify the kind of documents or evidence which the government may have wanted to share with it. A letter was sent from the commission on this matter and was quickly responded to with some documents sent by the secretary’s office,” a source said.