The Telangana High Court on Wednesday extended until January 19, 2026 the interim orders not to initiate adverse action against former Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao and three others following the findings of the PC Ghose Commission on irregularities in the implementation of the Kaleshwaram project.
The other three included former minister T Harish Rao, former chief secretary SK Joshi and senior IAS officer Smita Sabharwal. The four had separately filed a writ petition to stay the PC Ghose Judicial Commission report set up by the Congress government to probe the alleged irregularities in the implementation of the Kaleshwaram project. The government filed a counter-affidavit in the suit filed by Mr. Chandrasekhar Rao, but sought time to file the same in the case of the other three.
A counter-affidavit filed by IAS officer Rahul Bojja, Principal Secretary, Irrigation and Development of the command area, said that Mr. Chandrasekhar Rao deliberately suppressed a crucial report of an expert committee that warned against the construction of a dam at Medigadda. The affidavit states that he kept the report in cold storage so that he could build the dam in his preferred location.
The commission said in its report that Mr. Chandrasekhar Rao, the then CM, was involved in this suppression and “deliberately disregarded the report of the expert committee”. The irregularity of not acting on expert opinion resulted in the imposition of wasteful expenditure of around ₹ 7,500 crore on the exchequer. A senior officer, the second respondent in the suit, said that “critical” administrative approvals for the construction of barrages at Medigadda, Annaram and Sundial were “never granted or ratified by the Council of Ministers”.
It was a “deep violation of the rules of conduct under Article 166 of the Constitution,” the affidavit states. Administrative approvals were granted 11 months before a detailed project report was submitted to the Central Water Management Commission for review. The fact that statutory clearances for hydrology, interstate affairs, construction machinery consultancy were secured much later showed that decisions were made before the necessary technical review by central authorities was completed.
The revised administrative approvals provided “unwarranted extensions of time in a callous manner. Extenuating circumstances, such as transferring the cost of the cofferdam dam construction (which was originally intended to be borne by the contractor) to the state treasury, the Commission called “undisputed evidence of an intent to siphon off public funds to improperly favor the agency,” according to the affidavit.
The government said Mr. Chandrasekhar Rao’s claim that he was not given an opportunity to explain his position under the Commissions of Inquiry Act was “incorrect”. Mr. Chandrasekhar Rao himself, after appearing before the Commission, asked for an in-camera review. He asked for no cross-examination or any records. His allegation that the Commission had violated Section 8-B and 8-C of the Act was erroneous, the affidavit said.
Published – 12 Nov 2025 21:39 IST
