Telangana Defends Ghose Panel Report on Kaleshwaram in HC

Speaking on behalf of the government, Solicitor General A. Sudershan Reddy and senior advocate S. Niranjan Reddy argued that the commission report only pointed out shortcomings and excesses in the planning and execution of the project and did not attribute personal culpability to the petitioners.

The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin, was hearing petitions filed by K. Chandrashekar Rao, T. Harish Rao, senior IAS officer Smitha Sabharwal and former IAS officer SK Joshi challenging the commission’s report and seeking directions to restrain the government from taking coercive action based on its findings. The state’s attorney argued that the report identified only administrative shortcomings and did not make accusations regarding the petitioners’ character or personal integrity. He said that the observations in the report could not be interpreted as insults.

Senior advocate Niranjan Reddy stated that an expert committee of engineers had earlier stated that the construction of Medigadda dam at the selected location was not suitable, but the then government continued with this decision. He argued that the commission only recorded errors committed in this context.

He also argued that the government has the authority to establish a commission of inquiry on matters of public concern. In this case, the commission was established on allegations of irregularities in the execution of the project, which had a serious financial impact on the state.

Allegedly, the project was initially intended to irrigate 19.63 lakh acres at an estimated cost of ₹81,911 crore. However, the expenditure later rose to around ₹1.47 lakh crore, placing a heavy burden on state finances.

Citing the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), the lawyer said the audit has raised concerns about the financial viability of the project. The report stated that around ₹ 7.5 lakh per acre is spent on irrigation, while the state pays around ₹ 12,826 crore annually as interest on loans related to the project.

The interest component alone was around £60,000 per acre, while around £50,000 per acre was spent on electricity costs to operate the lift irrigation system, the court was told. The CAG report also suggested that the project may not be economically beneficial.

The attorney general also stated that the project was executed after the redesign of the earlier Pranahita-Chevella Ropeway Irrigation Scheme, which led to higher electricity consumption.

Allegedly, the redesign increased the annual electricity requirement by approximately 5,643 million units, adding approximately ₹3,555 crore annually to energy expenses. It was also stated that ₹767 crore spent earlier on the Pranahita-Chevella project has become unnecessary after the redesign.

The attorney general told the court that works worth ₹ 25,049 crore were awarded in 2018 before the Detailed Project Report received approval from the Central Water Commission. After the state government completed its arguments, the division bench gave time to the counsel to submit their replies to the petitioners. The issue will be discussed again on March 12.