HC declines to stay Ghose Commission’s report tabling in Assembly: No relief to KCR, Harish Rao

Telangana High Court on Friday declined to grant interim relief to former Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhara Rao and former Minister T. Harish Rao who sought quashing of the report of Justice (Retired) P.C. Ghose Commission which indicted them over allegations of irregularities in execution of the Kaleshwaram project.

A bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, observed that it ‘appears that the apprehension of the petitioners that action could be taken on the basis of the findings of the report allegedly touching upon the conduct and reputation of the petitioners is misplaced’. The bench, however, directed the Chief Secretary and the Secretary of Irrigation and Command Area Development to file a ‘detailed counter affidavit to the averments and grounds raised in the writ petitions within a period of four weeks’.

The bench granted one week time to the petitioners to reply to the counter affidavits. The bench passed the interim directions after hearing contentions of Supreme Court senior counsels Aryama Sundaram and V. Seshadri Naidu, who appeared for Harish Rao and KCR respectively, for two consecutive days. Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy and senior counsel S. Niranjan Reddy appeared for the State.

The bench headed by the CJ, which the previous day wanted a specific reply from the AG to the query whether the government would take action based on the Commission’s findings in the report before tabling it on the floor of the Assembly, repeated the question on Friday. The AG categorically submitted, based on written instructions of the government, to the bench that ‘further action on the report would be taken only after discussion on the floor of the Assembly’.

The bench noted that the Commissions of Inquiry Act-1952 permitted laying down the Commission’s report before the Assembly where it was to be debated and discussed. “When the State government has come out with a categorical assertion that no action is going to be taken on the basis of any such findings in the report, no further interim directions are required to be passed in that regard,” the bench said.

That the petitioners were apparently prejudiced because of the alleged publication of the contents of the report by way of a press conference, the bench noted. It also considered their allegation that the report was available on the official website of the government even before it was placed in the Assembly. The bench made it clear to the government that ‘in case the report has been uploaded on any official website of the government, it should be taken down’.