A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin reserved judgment after hearing detailed submissions from both sides.
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Thursday said orders would be pronounced on April 8 in a batch of writ petitions filed by former chief minister K. Chandrashekar Rao, former minister T. Harish Rao, retired IAS officer Shailendra Kumar Joshi and senior IAS officer Smita Sabharwal challenging the report submitted by the P.C. Ghose on the alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram lift irrigation scheme (KLIS).
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin reserved judgment after hearing detailed submissions from both sides. The bench also extended the interim protection earlier granted to the petitioners, restraining the state government from acting on the basis of the commission’s findings until the judgment was delivered.
Senior counsel Dama Sheshadri Naidu, appearing for one of the petitioners, contended that the challenge was not to the state’s power to constitute a commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 but to the manner in which the inquiry was conducted. “We are only aggrieved by the procedural violation which is mandatory as per the Act. Our argument is on prejudice to the petitioners,” he submitted. Naidu argued that statutory notices under Sections 8B and 8C were not issued and that the petitioners were denied access to documents and an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
Naidu argued that the Ghose commission had merely reached conclusions that the state government expected. “The commission found what the state wanted it to find. The state wanted to fire the gun from somebody else’s shoulder and used the commission for it,” he argued. Senior counsel said that the petitioners came to know of the adverse findings only after the report was made public.
Refuting the state’s allegations on the ballooning of the project costs, senior counsel submitted that cost escalations were common in large irrigation projects and cited examples of several projects in the Telugu States. “They (the government) created an impression that the project was a colossal failure and that public money had gone down the drain, but statistics may not lie,” he argued, adding that the irrigation potential in the state had significantly increased due to the KLIS.
Senior counsel Naidu also referred to a government order issued months after the inquiry was constituted, to submit that water from the project was being utilised by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and for the state government’s Musi river rejuvenation project.
Counsels representing Smitha Sabharwal and S.K. Joshi reiterated that the officials were merely called for a “meeting” and were not issued proper statutory notices during the inquiry. They argued that the report had damaged their reputation and questioned their conduct without affording them a fair opportunity to defend themselves. “Right to reputation is also a fundamental right, but they have been deprived of statutory and constitutional rights,” counsels told the court.
During the hearing, the bench raised queries regarding the format of notices issued to the 119 witnesses that the commission examined, and whether the petitioners were treated differently from other witnesses.
HC Suggests Government Frame Policy on Regularisation of Contract Employees
A division bench of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin on Thursday granted interim stay till April 15, on the order of a single judge, which had directed the regularisation of a part-time employee who had been working at the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) since 1988. The bench also directed the government to frame clear guidelines for the regularisation of services of temporary and contract employees.
The single judge bench had passed its order on a petition filed by A. Narasimha, record assistant. He had joined as an attender on a daily wage basis in 1988. According to Narasimha, his services had to be regularised in 1994, under GO Ms. No. 212 dated April 22, 1994, which stated that regularisation may be considered for part-time employees who had completed five years of service.
The single judge had directed the university to regularise his services within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Aggrieved by the order, JNTU filed an appeal before the division bench. During the hearing.
Chief Justice Singh observed that a large number of cases relating to regularisation of temporary and contract employees were pending before courts and suggested that the government take a policy decision by framing appropriate guidelines on the matter in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006)’.
The Chief Justice pointed out that Jharkhand had taken steps to implement the principles laid down in the ‘Umadevi’ judgment and suggested that similar measures could be considered by the state government. The court observed that the formulation of a clear policy would assist in resolving the large number of pending disputes and reduce litigation on the issue.
The division bench also observed that no comprehensive GO or legislation addressing the regularisation of temporary or contract employees had been framed in the state after 1993. The court requested the Advocate-General to place the issue before the authorities and consider taking appropriate steps to address the matter.
German-Russian Row: HC Restrains Share Transfer
Hyderabad: Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court directed AL Plus Holding LLC, a subsidiary associated with the Rusal group, to not transfer or otherwise deal with its shareholding in Pioneer Aluminium Industries Limited to the extent of approximately 26 per cent until the next date of hearing on April 7. The interim protection was granted pending consideration of the enforcement petition.
The proceedings arose out of two foreign arbitral awards rendered in London by a three-member tribunal.
According to a petition filed before the High Court, the tribunal awarded E213.77 million to the petitioner, OWH SE, a Germany financial institution, under an award dated September 25, 2024. Subsequently, by an additional award dated August 29, 2025, the tribunal granted E33.83 million towards further interest.
With accrued interest and legal costs included, the total amount sought to be enforced in India was stated to be approximately ₹2,840 crore.
The petitioner, OWH SE, requested the High Court to declare the foreign arbitral awards as binding and enforceable in India in the same manner as a decree of a court under the applicable provisions governing enforcement of foreign awards.
