On Thursday, the High Court in Telangana tried to know whether the state government was going to submit a report on the action (ATR), along with the report for the PC Ghos, which asked the alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaam project before the State Assembly.
The search for this clarification by the general defense attorney A. Sudarshan Reddy, the bench of the main judge Aparesh Kumar Singh and the judge GM Mohiuddin HC postponed the hearing of both written petitions filed by former main minister K. Chandrasekhar Raem and his former college of T. Harish Rao. The BRS Supremo KCR and Harish Rao, who first served as an irrigation and later Minister of Finance during the BRS rule, shifted the HC looking for instructions to declare the Ghos Commission constitution unlawful and cancel its report.
After hearing extensive arguments presented by the head of the Supreme Court of Aryama Sundaram and Dama Shadri Naidu, which appear for Harish Rao and KCR, CJ raised a specific question.
The bench wanted to know whether the government wanted to submit a message to the Commission before the assembly before taking any steps, or taking steps on the basis of the report and placeing the ATR in front of the assembly.
Ag replied that he was not sure whether the government would publish the report as it was before the discussion before the admission of its acceptance or it would act in the report and then provided the report in the Assembly along with the main report.
“We have to know that … that’s a key question … a key area of interest …” CJ said. AG was looking for time by Monday or Tuesday to explain the government stand.
“The acceptance of the report must be made at the floor level of the assembly after the debate… whether it is necessary to take a step before the report or after the finding of the findings,” it will be the main point, noted CJ. Previously, the head of Aryama Sundaram advised that the compulsory notice pursuant to Section 8b of the Act on the Inquiry Act was not issued to his client in 1952, and therefore the Commission report would be considered “disturbed”.
He questioned the activities of the State Government in the presentation of a part of the report of the Commission in the Public Sphere. CM even presented a Power Point presentation in front of the media people and all newspapers were reported, he said.
Ag replied by “knowing and understanding” the two petitioners that the announcement issued to them was according to Section 8b. He claimed that the case laws cited by the petitioners would not apply in the present case.
Read more
Published – August 21, 2025 9:02
