Telangana High Court
Shri Shailendra Kumar Joshi vs The State Of Telangana on 22 April, 2026
* THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
+ WRIT PETITION Nos.24835, 24837, 26367 and 29352 of 2025
% Dated: 22.04.2026
W.P.No.24835 of 2025:
# Thanneeru Harish Rao and others
...Petitioners
vs.
$ The State of Telangana, General Administration Department,
Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chief Secretary
and others.
...Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.24835 of 2025:
Mr. C.A.Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel,
representing Mr. Jaggannagari Venkat Sai
! Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.24837 of 2025:
Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned Senior Counsel,
Representing Mr. Ponugoti Mohith Rao
! Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.26367 of 2025:
Mr. Tarun G. Reddy
! Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.29352 of 2025:
Mr. J.Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel,
representing Mr. Jagannagari Venkat Sai
^ Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 in W.P.No.24835 of 2025:
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi,
learned Senior Counsel, representing Advocate General.
2
^ Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 in W.P.Nos.24837 and 26367
of 2025:
Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel,
along with Mr. A.Sudarshan Reddy,
learned Advocate General, duly assisted by
Mr. I.V.Siddhivardhana, learned Special Government Pleader.
^ Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 in W.P.No.29352 of 2025:
Mr. P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel,
representing Advocate General.
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred
1. 1995 SCC OnLine AP 356
2. (1989) 1 SCC 494
3. 2004 SCC OnLine All 1891
4. AIR 1958 SC 538
5. (2003) 4 SCC 557
6. (2008) 12 SCC 675
7. (2001) 6 SCC 181
8. (2003) 8 SCC 361
9. 1968 SCC OnLine SC 46
10. (2001) 6 SCC 50
11. (2009) 9 SCC 173
12. (2004) 12 SCC 278
13. (1984) 1 SCC 43
14. (2009) 13 SCC 102
15. (1977) 4 SCC 608
16. (1994) 6 SCC 632
17. AIR 1967 SC 122
18. (1990) 2 SCC 48
19. AIR 1958 SC 300
20. (2016) 7 SCC 221
3
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT PETITION Nos. 24835, 24837, 26367 and 29352 of 2025
Dated: 22.04.2026
W.P.No.24835 of 2025:
Between:
Thanneeru Harish Rao
...Petitioner
and
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad,
and 2 others.
...Respondents
W.P.No.24837 of 2025:
Between:
Sri Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao
...Petitioner
and
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad,
and 2 others.
...Respondents
W.P.No.26367 of 2025:
Between:
Shri Shailendra Kumar Joshi
...Petitioner
4
and
The State of Telangana, General Administration Department,
Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
and 2 others.
...Respondents
W.P.No.29352 of 2025:
Between:
Smt. Smita Sabharwal
...Petitioner
and
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad,
and 2 others.
...Respondents
COMMON JUDGMENT (Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ):
Mr. C.A.Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appears for
Mr. Jaggannagari Venkat Sai, learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.No.24835 of 2025.
Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned Senior Counsel appears for
Mr. Ponugoti Mohith Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.No.24837 of 2025.
Mr. Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel appears for the petitioner in
W.P.No.26367 of 2025.
Mr. J.Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel appears for
Mr. Jagannagari Venkat Sai, learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.No.29352 of 2025.
5
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appears for
the State in W.P.No.24835 of 2025.
Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, along with
Mr. A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General duly assisted by
Mr. I.V.Siddhivardhana, learned Special Government Pleader appears
for the State in W.P.Nos.24837 and 26367 of 2025.
Mr. P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel appears for the
State in W.P.No.29352 of 2025.
2. A Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Pinaki Chandra
Ghose, Former Judge of Supreme Court of India, was appointed in
exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Commissions of
Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1952'), to conduct
judicial inquiry on certain allegations of irregularities and embezzlement
of public funds by corrupt practices in constructing the barrages of
Medigadda and Annaram Reservoirs of Kaleshwaram Project, on the
Terms of Reference contained therein. The Commission was conferred
with the powers under sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Section 5 of
the Act of 1952. The Commission, after examination of several
witnesses and documents, submitted its Report on 31.07.2025. The writ
6
petitioners being aggrieved by the findings preferred the present writ
petitions.
3. The petitioner (THR) in writ petition No.24835 of 2025 is the
former Minister for Irrigation in the erstwhile Telangana Government.
The petitioner (KCR) in writ petition No.24837 of 2025 is the
former Chief Minister of Telangana Government.
The petitioner (SKJ) in writ petition No.26367 of 2025 is the
Retired Indian Administrative Service Officer.
The petitioner (SS) in writ petition No.29352 of 2025 is the
Indian Administrative Officer serving in the State of Telangana.
The petitioners in W.P.Nos.24835, 24837, 26367 and 29352 of
2025 are referred to as THR, KCR, SKJ and SS respectively hereinafter.
4. It is stated by the petitioners that upon submission of the Report
by the Commission on 31.07.2025, in a Press Conference which was
convened by the Present Chief Minister, a power point presentation was
made by the present Irrigation Minister on 04.08.2025. The petitioners
claimed to have learnt about the prejudicial and defamatory findings
against them on the basis of the power point presentation made during
the Press Conference. Except in writ petition No.26367 of 2025, the
petitioners in the other writ petitions, approached the writ court with
7
common prayer for a declaration that G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 14.03.2024,
whereby Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Former Judge of the Supreme
Court of India, was appointed to conduct judicial inquiry into the
alleged negligence, irregularities and lacunae in planning, designing and
construction of Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla barrages, which form
integral components of the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Scheme and to
fix up responsibilities for any authority/official who extended undue
favours to the agencies/contractors, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional
and ultra vires the provisions of the Act of 1952 and contrary to the
judgments passed by this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
All the writ petitioners have sought a declaration that the observations
and findings of the Commission in its Report dated 31.07.2025, which
are prejudicial and defamatory as against them, are illegal and arbitrary,
premeditated and mala fide and prayed for setting aside the same as they
have been made without providing notice under Sections 8B and 8C of
the Act of 1952 in violation of the principles of natural justice. They
have also sought a declaration that the action of the respondents-State in
making repeated publications of the Report of the Commission, dated
31.07.2025 is manifestly arbitrary, illegal, mala fide, biased and
premeditated and violative of principles of natural justice.
8
5. During the proceedings of the writ petitions, interim orders were
passed in the case of individual writ petitioners that no action based
upon the adverse findings of the Commission should be taken against
the petitioners, during the pendency of the writ petitions. It was brought
to the notice of this Court that the Report was submitted before the
Legislative Assembly on 31.08.2025. It was also submitted by the
learned Advocate General that no adverse action based on the findings
of the Report was going to be taken against the writ petitioners.
However, the matter had been handed over to the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) vide G.O.Ms.No.104, dated 01.09.2025 to conduct
investigation into the allegations of irregularities, embezzlement of
public funds and corrupt practices etc., in the matter of construction of
Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla barrages of Kaleshwaram Irrigation
Project against all the accused persons including the public servants and
private persons, companies etc.
6. After completion of the pleadings, the matters had been heard at
length. Detailed submissions have been made on behalf of the writ
petitioners and the respondents 1 and 2-State.
9
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONERS:
W.P.No.24835 of 2025 (THR):
7. Mr. C.A.Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the writ petitioner, THR in W.P.No.24835 of 2025 has made
submissions on the background of the inter-state project to utilise
Godavari water for irrigational purposes and to cater to the needs of
drinking water and industrial purposes. The Government of Telangana
in the year 2014 had engaged the services of Water and Power
Consultancy Services (WAPCO) - a Union of India Public Sector
Undertaking to investigate, identify and recommend alternative site for
barrage construction. The sites were identified as Medigadda, Annaram
and Sundilla. According to the petitioner, in the year 2023, one of the
piers, i.e., Pillar No.20 of Medigadda barrage subsided due to various
factors including excessive rainfall during monsoon season and other
circumstances beyond the control. They bore no relation to the design
and engineering of the barrage. However, the newly elected
Government, as part of their strategy to malign and discredit the
previous Government and to dismantle the important infrastructural and
10
welfare projects executed by the previous administration, appointed the
Commission of Inquiry with illegal, arbitrary and mala fide intentions.
8. One of the grounds to challenge G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 14.03.2024
is that it seeks to conduct judicial inquiry. The Commission of Inquiry
constituted under Section 3 of the Act of 1952 is a fact finding inquiry
and not a judicial inquiry. A judicial inquiry is not permissible under the
Act of 1952. It is submitted that the recitals of the Government Order
record conclusive findings on the reasons for sinking of the piers of
Medigadda (Lakshmi) barrage suggesting negligence, irregularities and
lack of proper care to ensure quality work in the construction of the
barrages leading to major loss to the public exchequer relying on the
report of the National Dam Safety Authority (NDSA). The Terms of
Reference of the Commission of Inquiry are indicative of premeditated
state of mind of the Government to indict the petitioner and other
persons entrusted with the task of decision making, execution of the
contract and the maintenance of the three barrages.
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to
certain adverse findings rendered by the Commission against the
petitioner without any statutory notice under Sections 8B and 8C of the
Act of 1952. The decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
11
Pradesh rendered in K.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy vs. Government of
Andhra Pradesh 1 has been referred to in this regard.
10. Learned Senor Counsel has, in this background, assailed the
constitution of a judicial inquiry as being impermissible under Section 3
of the Act of 1952. The proceedings are legally biased. Section 4 of the
Act of 1952 prescribes issuance of summons to secure the attendance of
any person, to examine him on oath as a witness, to discover any
document, to receive evidence on affidavit and requisition any public
record or copy thereof. It empowers the Commission to issue
commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents and any
other matter which may be prescribed. The Commission has been
conferred certain powers of a civil court, while trying a suit under the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. According to the petitioner, under
Section 5 of the Act of 1952, the appropriate Government may confer
additional powers upon the Commission having regard to the nature of
inquiry to be made and other circumstances of the case, by notification
in the Official Gazette. He has referred to the powers conferred such as,
sub-section (2) which provides that the Commission can require any
person to furnish any information on such points or matters as, in the
opinion of the Commission, may be useful for, or relevant to, the subject
1
1995 SCC OnLine AP 356
12
matter of the inquiry. Any person so required shall be deemed to be
legally bound to furnish such information within the meaning of
Sections 176 and 177 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He submits
that for the purposes of inquiry under these provisions, the Commission
is deemed to be a civil court. As per sub-section (4) of Section 5, when
any offence described in Sections 175, 178, 179, 180 or 228 of IPC is
committed in the view or presence of the Commission, it may forward
the case to a Magistrate as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 to hear the complaint. He submits that any proceeding
before the Commission is deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the
meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of IPC, as per sub-section (5).
However, these provisions do not clothe the Commission of Inquiry
constituted under the Act of 1952 as a judicial inquiry. According to
him, Section 8B of the Act of 1952 provides that the Commission of
Inquiry shall give a reasonable opportunity to the person to be heard and
to produce evidence, if the Commission considers it necessary to inquire
into the conduct of any person, or is of the opinion that the reputation of
any person is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry. That such
person should be provided with the materials and evidence on which the
Commission is likely to form an opinion touching his conduct and
reputation. However, no such notice was given to the petitioner. The
13
only notice or summons issued on 20.05.2025 upon the petitioner
required him to appear before the Commission as a witness on
09.06.2025. The petitioner himself asked for copies of the reports on
06.06.2025, which were supplied to him on 09.06.2025 only on the date
of his appearance before the Commission of Inquiry. These documents
relate to cabinet resolutions on this project. Learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner has also countered the contention of the respondents-State
that petitioner voluntarily participated in the inquiry and since all the
documents relied upon in the inquiry, including the affidavits, enquiry
report and cabinet resolutions were supplied to him on his request, no
prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. However, according to the
petitioner, none of these documents implicate him. No incriminating
materials were put to him though ultimate observations and findings by
the Commission in its Report dated 31.07.2025 are prejudicial and
adverse on his conduct and reputation. The petitioner was examined as
Commission Witness No.114 on 09.06.2025. There are critical findings
of the Commission on the petitioner, who was the then Irrigation
Minister and also against the then Chief Minister (KCR). The petitioner,
for the first time, came to know about these findings when they were
made public by way of power point presentation before the Media in a
Press Conference convened by the Chief Minister, though the Report of
14
the Commission had not been tabled before the Assembly. Therefore,
the constitution of Commission, the manner in which the Inquiry has
been conducted, the procedure adopted by the Commission during the
inquiry proceedings and its findings, are vitiated and actuated by bias.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the
decision of the apex court in Kiran Bedi vs. Committee of Inquiry 2 in
support of his submission that the petitioner was not afforded an
opportunity to defend himself and to cross-examine the witnesses before
the adverse findings were recorded against him. Reliance has also been
placed in the case of K.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy (supra) to submit that a
person whose conduct and reputation are likely to be affected by the
enquiry has a right to cross-examine and engage a legal practitioner
before the Commission of Inquiry. He submits that the High Court in
that case had quashed the impugned notice under Section 8B of the Act
of 1952. Reliance has also been placed on Jai Prakash Associates
Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 3. Learned Senior Counsel has
drawn the attention of the Court to the findings of the Commission
highlighted at page 102 of the writ petition as being seriously prejudicial
to the petitioner. Based on these submissions, learned Senior Counsel
2
(1989) 1 SCC 494
3
2004 SCC OnLine All 1891
15
had sought quashing of the Report containing the findings of the
Commission with a declaration that they cannot be used against the
petitioner.
W.P.No.24837 of 2025 (KCR):
12. Mr. D.Seshadri Naidu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
KCR in W.P.No.24837 of 2025, who was the former Chief Minister, has
adopted the submissions made by Mr. C.A.Sundaram, learned Senior
Counsel. It is submitted that the petitioner, KCR has not waived off the
charge of procedural violations on the ground of non-issuance of the
mandatory notice under Sections 8B and 8C of the Act of 1952. There is
no substantial compliance of the notice as required under Sections 8B
and 8C of the Act of 1952. According to him, not only the constitution
of the Commission of Inquiry under G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 14.03.2024 is
ultra vires the Act of 1952, but also the Report submitted by the
Commission is arbitrary and illegal, fit to be set aside. He has also
referred to the summons dated 20.05.2025, whereby the petitioner was
asked to appear before the Commission for being examined and hear
him upon the Terms of Reference. In order to draw comparison, the
language and substance of the summons dated 14.04.2024 issued upon
the petitioner by the Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice
16
L.Narasimha Reddy, Former Chief Justice of Patna High Court, to
enquire into the correctness and propriety of the decisions taken by the
erstwhile Government of Telangana concerning power procurement
from Chhattisgarh by the State DISCOMs and the award of contracts
relating to the Bhadradri and Yadadri Thermal Power Projects without
competitive bidding, have been adverted to. He submitted that though
the form and substance of the summons dated 14.04.2024 also not fully
meet the requirement of Section 8B of the Act of 1952 but to some
extent a reasonable opportunity was given to defend himself against
materials and findings, which were likely to lead to adverse findings
upon his conduct and reputation, whereas the summons dated
20.05.2025 issued by the present Commission of Inquiry required the
petitioner to appear as a witness and depose before the Commission.
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also sought to
explain that the powers of the Commission under Sections 4 and 5 is for
collection of evidence by requiring the presence of a person as witnesses
and for production of documents. Section 8B of Act of 1952, inserted by
the Act 79 of 1971, with effect from 30.12.1971, on the other hand
specifically grants reasonable opportunity to defend oneself if in the
opinion of the Commission, any findings rendered by it are likely to
17
affect the conduct or reputation of such a person. These are two stages in
the conduct of any such enquiry by the Commission. Section 8C confers
the right to cross-examine and be represented by a legal practitioner to
any such person whose conduct or reputation is likely to be impeached
on the basis of materials collected during such enquiry. Rule 4 of the
Commissions of Inquiry (Central) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as
'Rules of 1972') lays down the procedure for issue and service of
summons. Rule 5 provides for procedure of inquiry. He has also
contested the stand of the respondents-State that since the petitioner had
participated in a challenge to the Commission of Inquiry headed by
Justice L.Narasimha Reddy, Former Chief Justice of Patna High Court,
in W.P.No.16588 of 2024, he was familiar with the procedure of such
enquiry and after voluntarily participating in the inquiry waived his
right. Learned Senior Counsel has also made the copious reference to
the findings rendered by the Commission on the alleged irregularities
committed by the petitioner, but the mandatory requirement of
reasonable opportunity to defend himself under Section 8B was denied
to him. According to him, there is a subtle distinction between the
provisions of Section 5(2) and 8B of the Act of 1952. He has referred to
the Report of Lord Salmon on the 'Royal Commission on Tribunals of
Inquiry, 1966' which lays down six cardinal principles to be followed by
18
any such Tribunals while conducting any such inquiry. He submits that
the Inquiries Act, 2005 framed by UK prescribes various safeguards
regarding production of evidence and publication of reports which have
a tendency of indict the conduct or reputation of a person. In conclusion,
he has assailed the findings of the Commission as being vitiated due to
serious violation of the procedure laid down and principles of natural
justice.
W.P.No.29352 of 2025 (SS):
14. Mr. J.Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner, SS who was the Additional Secretary to the Chief
Minister for the State of Telangana, has largely adopted the submissions
made by learned Senior Counsels, Mr. C.A.Sundaram and
Mr. D.Seshadri Naidu. He has submitted that the summons dated
12.07.2024 issued upon her was only to attend a meeting with the
Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry. There is a significant
difference between the summons issued on this petitioner, SS and that of
the other petitioners, THR and KCR. The petitioner, on being asked, had
filed an affidavit on 01.08.2024 explaining the nature of the duties
allotted to her, while at the same time stating that she had no role in
planning or execution of the work of these barrages. She was
19
telephonically asked to appear and depose before the Commission on
19.12.2024 without any further summons or notice as required under
Section 8B of Act of 1952. The petitioner, in due obedience appeared
and answered all the questions which are in relation to her
administrative responsibilities. No questions were put to the petitioner
containing allegations against her conduct or reputation, neither were
any documents supplied to her. However, the Commission rendered
adverse findings against the petitioner as are reflected at page 90 of the
writ petition. As such, her fundamental right to reputation which is a
facet of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has
been violated without following the mandatory procedure prescribed
under Section 8B of the Act of 1952. Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner has also sought to explain the significance of Sections 8B and
8C of the Act of 1952, inserted by way of Act 79 of 1971, with effect
from 30.12.1971, to accord reasonable opportunity to a person whose
conduct and reputation are likely to be affected by, in the opinion of the
Commission. He has therefore sought for quashing of the Report of the
Commission.
20
W.P.No.26367 of 2025 (SKJ):
15. Mr. Tarun G.Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, SKJ in
W.P.No.26367 of 2025 has referred to the credentials of the petitioner,
an Officer of Indian Administrative Service, 1984 batch. He had retired
on 31.12.2019. He has submitted that the Kaleshwaram project was
started in the year 2016 and was completed on 21.06.2019. One of the
piers of Medigadda barrage collapsed on 21.10.2023 four years after his
retirement. Learned counsel Mr. Rao has also questioned the
constitution of a judicial inquiry as contrary to Section 3 of the Act of
1952. He has also referred to the decision of the apex court in Ram
Krishna Dalmia vs. Justice S.R.Tendolkar 4 that the Commission of
Inquiry constituted under the Act of 1952 is only a fact finding enquiry
whose reports are not adjudicatory in nature. It is further submitted that
the petitioner got summons on 08.07.2024 to attend a meeting with the
Chairman of the Commission. He filed an affidavit on 21.07.2024
detailing his roles and responsibilities during the period when the
Project was being executed. Thereafter, he was telephonically called to
give evidence on 18.12.2024. During his examination, he answered a
number of questions posed by the Commission. However, the
Commission did not follow mandatory requirement under Section 8B of
4
AIR 1958 SC 538
21
the Act of 1952 by providing adverse materials collected by it during the
course of inquiry in order to properly defend himself. No reasonable
opportunity was provided to the petitioner as per Sections 8B and 8C of
the Act of 1952.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Jai
Prakash Associates (supra) on the requirement of Rule 5(2)(a) and (b)
of the Rules of 1972 vis-a-vis Section 8B of the Act of 1952. He has
referred to Canara Bank vs. Debasis Das 5 and submitted that every
material adverse to the petitioner had to be supplied for properly
defending himself. He has also countered the stand of the respondents-
State in their counter affidavit that petitioner having voluntarily
participated in the inquiry had acquiesced in the proceedings. He has
relied upon the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Uttar Pradesh
Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti 6 to submit that there is
no estoppel against the statute. If Sections 8B and 8C of the Act of 1952
require a notice upon the person, such requirement cannot be said to
have been waived by the petitioner. Based on these submissions, he has
prayed that the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
5
(2003) 4 SCC 557
6
(2008) 12 SCC 675
22
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS No.1 AND 2-STATE:
17. The response of the respondents-State is led by
Dr. A.M.Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing in W.P.No.24835 of
2025 preferred by THR. His submissions, at the outset, are broadly
based on the constitution of the Commission of Inquiry. According to
him, if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, it would amount to
denudation of the State's power to constitute a Commission for
undertaking a fact finding enquiry under the Act of 1952, where acts of
negligence and deliberate malfeasance come to light in discharge of
public duties by the people in power and agencies. By the very nature of
its constitution, the Commission is empowered to conduct a fact finding
enquiry than taking any coercive action on its own. It is well settled that
the Report of the Commission cannot be acted upon proprio vigore i.e.,
on its own. A decision is required to be taken on the findings of the
Commission by the competent authority for taking any action against
any person or agencies. The Government has handed over the matter to
the CBI to conduct investigation into the allegations of irregularities,
embezzlement of public funds, and corrupt practices etc., in the
construction of Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla barrages of
23
Kaleshwaram Irrigation Project against the accused persons, including
public servants and private persons, companies etc., in view of the
Reports of the National Dam Safety Authority and the findings of the
Commission of Inquiry.
18. It is contended that the petitioners have laid a challenge to the
constitution of the Commission of Inquiry as an afterthought after
voluntarily participating in its proceedings. Their entire submissions are
based on non-compliance of Section 8B of the Act of 1952, or lack of its
reference in the summons though it does not lead to their prejudice. The
petitioners are essentially insisting upon form over substance. The
constitution of the Commission of Inquiry was the outcome of a
multilayered institutional thinking, where the Government has taken into
account the Reports such as the National Dam Safety Authority, which
opined that the piers had sunk due to a combination of issues involving
lacunae and negligence in planning, design, quality control and
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of the barrage. The Commission of
Inquiry confirmed grave irregularities across conceptualization,
planning, design, construction, contract award, execution, O&M, quality
control and financial managements. It found that there was deliberate
suppression of the Expert Committee Report, which advised against the
24
Medigadda site. There was violation of Article 166 of the Constitution
of India and the Government Rules of Business in not ratifying the
administrative approvals by the Council of Ministers. It has caused an
annual debt burden of Rs.12,826 crores. The Report has been
meticulously compiled with reference to various government records,
orders and communications, which were all in the knowledge of the
petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents-State has
made detailed references to the Commission's Report, which includes
the role of the petitioner, THR as a Minister of Irrigation and a Minister
of Finance and also the Chief Minister, KCR. The Commission collected
large number of affidavits, made physical inspection of the sites and
referred to the Reports of the National Dam Safety Authority and the
Expert Committee constituted by the Government and examined the role
of the petitioner, THR as Minister of Irrigation was examined. It took
note that no clearance was taken from the Central Water Commission. It
has referred to the Report of the High Power Committee, which did not
recommend construction of these barrages at the relevant sites. It also
found that there was no approval of competent authority in issuing
G.O.Rt.No.776, dated 27.10.2015. The Commission found that the
Government has not considered the Report of the Expert Committee
which recommended against constitution of barrage at Medigadda site.
25
Moreover, the Cabinet Sub-committee did not refer to the construction
of barrages at Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla. The Commission also
found that the High Power Committee and the State Level Standing
Committee were not in picture in proposing/planning to entrust
consultancy services to WAPCOS. He has further referred to the huge
cost estimates in execution of the Project in the Report. The
Commission had prepared a set of questions and also recorded clinching
evidence on the irregularities committed during planning, designing and
execution of the Project and design issues. In conclusion, the
Commission had found that the High Power Committee did not
recommend for construction of barrage at Medigadda. It was the sole
decision of the then Chief Minister and the petitioner, who was the
Irrigation Minister. The Commission also found that three barrages were
constructed as reservoirs/dams, but they failed to design them as
reservoirs/dams. Approximately Rs.87,449 crores was sanctioned for
execution of the project including interest. An amount of Rs.6,519
crores was paid as interest. The petitioner was involved in these
decisions as a Minister of Irrigation. The project cost initially estimated
at Rs.81,911.01 crores has risen to Rs.1,47,427.41 crores on completion,
as per the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The
power of the Commission to conduct a fact finding enquiry under the
26
Act of 1952 is therefore not open to challenge on the grounds raised by
the petitioner.
19. The petitioner has, after submission of the Report, made an
attempt to dislodge the elaborate findings recorded by the Commission
after participating in the inquiry and having availed adequate
opportunity of hearing. The petitioner tendered his deposition as
C.W.114 on 09.06.2025 upon service of summons and also filed
documents in support of his case, which were marked as Exhibits. The
proceedings were conducted in-camera at the request of the petitioner.
He did not raise any objection regarding the procedure adopted by the
Commission and chosen not to exercise any statutory right available to
him, he is estopped from alleging violation of Sections 8B and 8C of the
Act of 1952, or breach of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the
plea that he was merely summoned as a witness or that the inquiry was
biased is an afterthought and untenable in the light of his conscious
participation in the proceedings.
20. The petitioner did not seek cross-examination of any witness
under Section 8C of the Act of 1952, nor did he seek any additional
records beyond those furnished. The Act does not prescribe any specific
format for notice under Section 8B or 8C of the Act of 1952. Therefore,
27
the absence of any reference to the statutory provision does not vitiate
the proceedings. The Commission's Report is founded on government
records and the proceedings reflect substantial compliance of the Act of
1952 and requirement of fairness. Therefore, the Commission cannot be
faulted for not suo motu offering wholesale cross-examination of over
119 witnesses when the petitioner did not invoke the right under Section
8C of the Act of 1952, in any manner.
21. Dr. A.M.Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents-
State submitted that the Commission of Inquiry is not a court. The
culpability of an individual will be determined by a competent court of
law following a rigorous statutory investigation, which has now been
ordered through the CBI. The petitioner's contention that the Terms of
Reference is ultra vires the Act of 1952 is misconceived. He has referred
to the decision of Ram Krishna Dalmia (supra). It is submitted that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has constantly held that
while a Commission cannot act as a court to impose punishment, it is
fully competent to inquire into the conduct of individuals to recommend
legislative or administrative measures. The mandate of G.O.Ms.No.6,
dated 14.03.2024 to fix responsibility for the lapses identified does not
transgress its boundary. It merely identifies administrative and financial
28
lapses to enable informed decision making in the realms of policy
correction, departmental action. It neither adjudicates guilt nor imposes
consequences. He has relied upon the case of T.T.Antony vs. State of
Kerala 7 in support. According to him, the Report of the Commission
dated 31.07.2025 is founded exclusively on official Government
records. He submits that the principles in Kiran Bedi (supra) and State
of Bihar vs. Lal Krishna Advani 8 are not applicable in the present
case. The case of Lal Krishna Advani (supra) does not lay down that
every report containing adverse observations must be quashed. In that
case, Advani was not given any notice. Hence, the Court held that the
notice to the person is essential.
22. In the present case, the petitioner was served with a formal notice
dated 20.05.2025 and appeared before the Commission on 09.06.2025,
tendered his testimony, sought and obtained relevant records and raised
no objection either to jurisdiction or procedure. He has distinguished the
case of P.V.Jagannath Rao vs. State of Orissa 9 and submitted that the
said decision merely reiterates that an administrative action may be
invalidated if its dominant purpose lies outside the statute. In the present
case, the dominant purpose of G.O.Ms.No.6 squarely falls within the
7
(2001) 6 SCC 181
8
(2003) 8 SCC 361
9
1968 SCC OnLine SC 46
29
scope of Section 3 of the Act of 1952. The challenge, therefore,
proceeds on a misreading of both the statutory framework and the settled
law governing Commissions of Inquiry.
23. It is further submitted that the allegation that the inquiry is a
political stratagem is baseless. The inquiry was necessitated by
objective, undeniable facts: the structural collapse of the Medigadda
barrage and the National Dam Safety Authority's Reports on quality
control and planning failures. The State has a constitutional duty to
protect the public exchequer. The Commission of Inquiry has completed
the task in strict adherence to the Act of 1952 and its findings are based
on official records. The State accepted the Report and handed over the
matter for investigation to CBI.
24. Learned Advocate General appeared for the respondents-State in
W.P.No.24837 of 2025, which has been preferred by the petitioner,
KCR. He has adopted the broad submissions made by
Dr. A.M.Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel. Besides that he has referred to
the findings of the National Dam Safety Authority, which are
incorporated in G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 14.03.2024. According to him, the
Terms of Reference contained in said G.O., are not premeditated or
prejudged.
30
25. He submits that in the case of P.V.Jagannath Rao (supra)
similar terms of enquiry were in question. In the said Commission of
Inquiry, the Terms of Reference named persons also in the Schedule,
against whom the Commission was asked to conduct enquiry. He has
also referred to the case of P.Janardhana Reddy vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh 10 where though the High Court had quashed the constitution of
Commission of Inquiry, the Hon'ble Supreme Court proceeded to set
aside the judgment of the High Court. He has refuted the attack made by
the petitioner on the expression 'judicial inquiry' used in the impugned
G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 14.03.2024, by submitting that the Commission of
Inquiry has been constituted under the Act of 1952. Since it is headed by
a former Judge, the said expression has been used. The Commission has
identified its duties within the scope and mandate of the Act of 1952.
Therefore, the use of expression 'judicial' does not render it anything
other than the Commission of Inquiry under the Act of 1952. He has
also referred to the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia (supra), where at
paras 8 and 9, it has been held that the Report of the Commission under
the Act of 1952 does not apply proprio vigore. Learned Advocate
General has referred to the recommendation of the High Power Expert
Committee. He has submitted that the administrative approval was
10
(2001) 6 SCC 50
31
granted for construction of Medigadda Barrage and for Annaram
Barrage by the petitioner, KCR. He has also referred to the findings of
the Commission of Inquiry to show that present petitioner as Chief
Minister and the petitioner, THR as Irrigation Minister had full
knowledge of the planning, construction and completion of the three
barrages and were fully aware of the scope of the inquiry.
26. Learned Advocate General has referred to the Report of the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) on performance audit
which refers to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry. The CAG
Report was tabled before the Legislature on 15.02.2024. The executive
summary of the CAG Report has made strong observations as regards
the construction of these barrages. He points out that the petitioner was
asked to appear after examination of all others was completed. The
petitioner was aware of nature of the proceedings since he had
challenged the similar Commission of Inquiry constituted by the State
Government appointing Justice L.Narasimha Reddy, Former Chief
Justice of Patna High Court, by filing W.P.No.16588 of 2024. Learned
Advocate General has also distinguished the case of the Lal Krishna
Advani (supra), where no notice was issued to Mr. Advani. He submits
that the petitioner has been given fair hearing as prescribed under
32
Section 8B of the Act of 1952. There is no specific format for notice
under Sections 8B and 8C of the Act of 1952. Therefore, substantive
fairness had been followed. Mere non-mentioning of a provision does
not render the notice fatal or illegal. He has referred to P.K.Palanisamy
vs. N.Arumugham 11. He has cited the case of N.Mani vs. Sangeetha
Theatre 12 on the proposition that mere non-mentioning of Section 8B of
the Act of 1952 in the summons issued upon the petitioner would not
nullify it. He has also relied upon the case of K.L.Tripathi vs. Union of
India 13 on the requirement of showing real prejudice in matters of
compliance of principles of natural justice. All that is required to be
done is fair play in action. The petitioner has not disputed that he was
not given the statement of witnesses or documents. In order to
substantiate the submission, he has placed reliance on Union of India
vs. Bishamber Das Dogra 14. He has submitted that the Government
has handed over the investigation to the CBI in the matter of
construction of Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla barrages of
Kaleshwaram Irrigation Project. He has relied upon the learned Single
Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
11
(2009) 9 SCC 173
12
(2004) 12 SCC 278
13
(1984) 1 SCC 43
14
(2009) 13 SCC 102
33
C.W.P.No.23285 of 2018 and on State of Karnataka vs. Union of
India 15.
27. Learned Advocate General has later pointed out that notices to
the two petitioners, SKJ and SS were of the same nature and content as
to other witnesses. However, it is submitted that the notices issued to the
petitioners, THR and KCR were different from other witnesses. Based
on these submissions, learned Advocate General has prayed that the writ
petition being devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed.
28. Mr. P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel has appeared for
the respondents-State in W.P.No.29352 of 2025, filed by the petitioner,
SS. It is submitted that the petitioner has also made similar challenge to
the G.O., and the findings of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry
on the grounds that the findings of the Commission prejudicially affect
her conduct and reputation and are violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The petitioner was served notice dated 12.07.2024
to attend the meeting with the Chairman of the Commission on
15.07.2024 at 12.30 pm. The petitioner had been granted a reasonable
opportunity of hearing. The petitioner filed an affidavit on 01.08.2024 in
15
(1977) 4 SCC 608
34
compliance to the notice issued upon her and was thereafter asked to
appear before the Commission and examined as C.W.95, on 19.12.2024.
29. Mr. Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel has referred to the
Rules of 1972, which govern the requirement of notice under Rule 5 or
Section 8B of the Act of 1952. According to him, the Commission of
Inquiry fully followed the procedure prescribed in law. He has referred
to the counter affidavit, i.e., I.A.No.1 of 2026 which contains the
remarks of the Commission against the petitioner. According to him, all
government orders were shown to her though she could not answer
properly. Therefore, the Commission has commented that she was not
diligent. The opinion of the Commission is, therefore, based on
materials placed before it after a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
He has referred to Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 1972 which provides for
giving evidence and for producing documents. Rule 5(2)(a) provides for
opportunity of hearing to the person. Rule 5(2)(b) also prescribes notice
to the person acquainted with the subject matter. Rule 5(3) requires
submission of affidavit. The petitioner did not complain of lack of notice
or materials as she was aware about the nature of the documents on
which she was asked to depose. The petitioner being an Officer of
35
Indian Administrative Service stands on a different footing and is
governed by the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
30. It is submitted that the findings of the Commission in respect of
the petitioner are at pages 161 to 167 of the Report. They conclusively
establish her involvement and dereliction of duty. At page 161 of the
Report, the Commission considered her affidavit dated 01.08.2024 and
her oral statement. In her oral examination at pages 161 to 163 of the
Report, the petitioner admitted that she had knowledge of placing
matters before the Cabinet and stated that all proposals to the barrages
were placed before the Cabinet for approval. Based on the documentary
evidence, the Commission concluded that she has violated the Business
Rules, which as an Officer of Indian Administrative Service she was
obligated to follow. The learned Senior Counsel sought to distinguish
the decisions relied upon by the petitioner in Kiran Bedi (supra), Lal
Krishna Advani (supra), Sanjay Gupta (supra), Jai Prakash
Associates (supra) and with that of Ram Krishna Dalmia (supra) and
Vijay Bhaskar Reddy (supra) relied on during the course of arguments.
31. It has been contended that since the findings of the Commission
are on pure question of facts, they cannot be decided under the writ
jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court may refuse to interfere in the matter.
36
32. Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel has appeared for
the respondents-State in W.P.No.26367 of 2025, preferred by the
petitioner, SKJ, who was the Chief Secretary when the project was
conceived and under execution. He had superannuated on 31.12.2019. In
the written submissions on behalf of the State, broadly the same grounds
had been taken as in the case of other petitioners. Learned Senior
Counsel submits that in the present batch of cases, there are 11 other
persons, who are bureaucrats and Engineers against whom also certain
findings or remarks have been made by the Commission of Inquiry in
the Report. However, such findings are not admissible in evidence.
Therefore, those officers/engineers have not chosen to lay any challenge
to the Report. A careful perusal of the findings of the Commission
would show that there are no findings on their personal conduct or
reputation on any of them. The findings against the petitioners are only
in respect of discharge of their public duties. The petitioners were
supplied all the documents which were relevant and formed the basis for
the Commission's Report. Even if the contention of the petitioners on
the issue of service of notice under Sections 8B and 8C of the Act of
1952 is accepted, nothing turns out upon that as the Commission has not
commented upon their conduct or personal reputation. He has referred to
37
the case of R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu 16
and submitted that if the petitioner cannot succeed in a suit for damages
on the findings recorded by the Commission, they obviously cannot
succeed in writ jurisdiction. Leaned Senior Counsel has also referred to
the Reports of the National Dam Safety Authority, the CAG regarding
the sinking of the piers, the change of the dam site and the staggering
cost involved in the project. According to him, in State of
J&K v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad 17, the petitioner had demanded the
statements of more than 400 witnesses, examined by the Commission,
which was turned down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted
that the scope and purpose of such an enquiry is to render the findings
on the discharge of public duties by persons like the petitioners. If the
contention of the petitioner that each and every statement of a witness
and the documents were to be supplied to the petitioner before
examining him, the functioning of the Commission of Inquiry would be
rendered unworkable. The petitioner had served as a Principal Secretary
and Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Irrigation and
Command Area Development Department between 12.01.2015 and
31.01.2018 and thereafter as Chief Secretary from 01.02.2018 to
31.12.2019. In his affidavit and oral examination, he had admitted that
16
(1994) 6 SCC 632
17
AIR 1967 SC 122
38
he was responsible for overall coordination within the Irrigation
Department of the newly formed State of Telangana and for securing
statutory and administrative clearances from the Government of India in
relation to the Pranahita - Chevella Lift Irrigation Scheme.
Notwithstanding this admitted responsibility, the Commission found that
he was unable to recollect whether the proposal for construction of the
barrages was placed before the High Power Committee, the State Level
Standing Committee or the Expert Committee constituted under
G.O.Rt.No.28, dated 21.01.2015 thereby demonstrating lack of diligence
in matters of critical importance. The Commission further relied upon
G.O.Rt.No.776, of Irrigation and Command Area Development
Department (Project-II) dated 27.10.2015, which accorded Government
approval for modifications recommended by the High Power Committee
for Packages 6 to 8 and 10 to 12 under PCSS project. The Government
Order was issued by the petitioner himself. The Commission held that a
Cabinet Sub-committee was constituted under G.O.Rt.No.655, GAD
(Cabinet) Department, dated 07.03.2016 to examine issues relating to re-
engineering of major irrigation projects. Pursuant to the report of the
Cabinet Sub-committee, G.O.Rt.Nos.607 to 611, dated 30.06.2016 were
issued. All these Government Orders were signed by the petitioner. The
Commission, on appreciation of his answers, found his evidence to be
39
inconsistent, lacking coherence, reinforcing the conclusion that his
version could not be relied upon. The Commission further examined the
Inter-State Board Meeting held on 23.08.2016 attended inter alia by the
then Chief Minister, concerned Ministers and the petitioner as Special
Chief Secretary, I&CAD Department. The Commission, after taking
note of it, concluded that the Special Chief Secretary failed to exercise
due diligence and propriety though the project led to considerable
burden on the exchequer. The Commission further recorded that the
Report of the Expert Committee constituted under G.O.Rt.No.28, dated
21.01.2015 was not considered by the Government, which resulted in
enormous loss to the public exchequer. The Commission at page 547 of
the Report observed that the petitioner in his dual role as Principal
Secretary to Government, I&CAD Department and Chairman of the
Kaleshwaram Irrigation Project Corporation Limited (KIPCL) could not
feign ignorance of the Government Order mandating that projects
undertaken by KIPCL shall be Turn Key projects. This act of putting up
a note proposing a departure from the approved Turn Key model to
EPC/LS mode was held to be contrary to binding Government policy
and reflective of administrative impropriety. Therefore, the findings of
the Commission against the petitioner are based on substantial evidence,
logical inference and established administrative norms, and fully justify
40
the conclusions and recommendations made therein. Based on these
submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the State, Mr. Niranjan Reddy
has also prayed that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is fit to
be dismissed.
33. Reply submissions had been made by Mr. D.Seshadri Naidu on
behalf of the petitioner (KCR) in W.P.No.24837 of 2025. He submits
that the test of prejudice is to be seen in a case of violation of principles
of natural justice. He has referred to the case of Management of M/s.
Nally Bharat Engineering Company Limited vs. State of Bihar 18. He
has once again referred to the notice issued under Section 8B of the Act
of 1952 headed by Justice L.Narasimha Reddy, Former Chief Justice of
Patna High Court. According to him, waiver has no application as public
interest have been statutorily safeguarded by introduction of Sections 8B
and 8C of the Act of 1952. It is mandatory to issue notice in a case
where the conduct and reputation of any person are likely to be affected
by the opinion of the Commission. He has countered the submissions
based upon the alleged escalation of cost in the execution of the project.
He submits that the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project initially
conceived at Rs.80,190 crores in the year 2017, got increased to the
revised estimate of Rs.1,27,000 crores, which is only 1.59 times the
18
(1990) 2 SCC 48
41
original estimates. It is much less compared to other public projects
executed across the country. He further submits that the Report of the
CAG has no probative value. The contention of the State's Senior
Counsel that there was no attack on personal reputation of the petitioner
does not have any merit. He has also distinguished the case of Bakshi
Gulam Mohammad (supra), where the petitioner had asked for 400
affidavits which the Supreme Court held that it would lead to a situation
where the proceedings would be unterminable. According to him, the
absence of a proper notice under Section 8B of the Act of 1952 and right
to cross-examination under Section 8C of the Act of 1952 is writ large
on the face of the Report. Therefore, the contention to the contrary by
the State's Senior Counsel cannot be sustained.
34. Mr. J.Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner (SS) in W.P.No.29352 of 2025 has also reiterated his
submissions on non-compliance of the requirement of Section 8B of the
Act of 1952. He has referred to the case of Khem Chand v. Union of
India 19 and Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India 20 on the right to
reputation. According to him, several statutory clearances were taken
before the project was launched. There was no infirmity in the planning
19
AIR 1958 SC 300
20
(2016) 7 SCC 221
42
or design of the project or fault or negligence on the part of the
petitioner.
35. Mr. Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner (SKJ) in
W.P.No.26367 of 2025 has also replied on the same lines. He submits
that the doctrine of substantive compliance on the requirement of a
statutory notice under Section 8B of the Act of 1952 is not applicable in
the instant case. He has again referred the case of Lal Krishna Advani
(supra) and Bakshi Gulam Mohammad (supra) in support of the
submission that the findings of the Commission without reasonable
opportunity to the petitioner and without furnishing the incriminating
material are unsustainable in law and on facts.
Discussion and Analysis:
36. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. We have
also taken note of the relevant materials relied upon by learned counsel
for the parties and placed from record. We have also perused the
decisions cited by the rival parties.
37. The writ petitioners question the vires of G.O.Ms.No.6, dated
14.03.2024 as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and ultra vires
the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. However, the
43
petitioner, SKJ has not laid any challenge to G.O.Ms.No.6, dated
14.03.2024. All the writ petitioners have assailed the findings of the
Commission headed by Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Former Judge of
Supreme Court of India, against them as being prejudicial, scurrilous,
mala fide and in violation of provisions of Sections 8B and 8C of the
Act of 1952 and in violation of principles of natural justice.
38. Both the parties have referred to copious materials from record to
substantiate their stand on the aforesaid challenge. Therefore, based
upon the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and pleadings on
record, two essential issues arise for adjudication by this Court.
(i) Whether the constitution of the Commission of Inquiry under
Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, vide G.O.Ms.No.6,
dated 14.03.2024 is arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires the Constitution of
India and the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952?
(ii) Whether the findings rendered by the Commission are
prejudicial to the conduct and reputation of the petitioners without
following the statutory safeguard provided under Sections 8B and 8C of
the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and thereby in violation of the
principles of natural justice?
44
39. Both the issues are dealt with hereinafter. In order to appreciate
the controversy surrounding the first issue relating to the constitution of
the Commission of Inquiry, it is pertinent to refer to G.O.Ms.No.6, dated
14.03.2024, which is usefully extracted hereunder:
GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA
ABSTRACT
COMMISSIONS - Commission of Inquiry under the
Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Central Act 60 of 1952) -
Appointment of Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Former Judge
of Supreme Court of India to conduct Judicial Inquiry on certain
allegations of irregularities and embezzlement of public funds by
corrupt practices in constructing the barrages of Medigadda,
Annaram and Sundilla of Kaleshwaram Project - Orders - Issued.
_____________________________________________________
IRRIGATION AND CAD (Projects-IV) DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms.No.6. Dated: 14/03/2024
ORDER:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has time and again
held that Government contracts involve expenditure out of the
public exchequer. Therefore, the moneys expended must not be
spent arbitrarily. The procurements should be made at best price
and the process should be transparent. The State does not have
absolute discretion while spending public money. All government
actions including government contracts awarded by the State must
be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 and the process must not
be discriminatory.
2. In the year 2015, the Government of Telangana proposed to
construct the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project at an estimated
cost of approximately 81,911 Cr. to irrigate a new ayacut of 19.63
lakh acres besides stabilization of ayacuts under existing projects,
and supply of water to industries and drinking water purposes.
Kaleshwaram Project envisages construction of 3 Barrages across
river Godavari at Medigadda, Annaram & Sundilla, and lifting
water in reverse direction through a system of large pumps,
pressure mains and gravity canals into the existing Yellampally
Project. From there onwards, Kaleshwaram Project is almost
similar to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Pranahita-Chevella Sujala Sravanthi
45
Project with enhanced capacities of Reservoirs and distributary
system.
3. The works of Construction of Medigadda Barrage were
entrusted to M/s.L&T-PES JV with final estimate of the Barrage
approved for Rs.4613.00 Crores. Annaram barrage works were
entrusted to AFCONS-VIJETHA-PES JV with final estimate
approved for Rs.2734.81 Crores. Sundilla barrage works were
entrusted to M/S NAVAYUGA- GMW JV and final estimate was
approved for Rs.2111.10 Crores.
4. Kaleshwaram project was planned to be entirely based on
loans raised by a newly formed SPV, the Kaleshwaram Irrigation
Project Corporation Ltd. (KIPCL). Loans to a tune of
Rs.87,449.16 Crores were sanctioned from Banks and Financial
Institutions of Government of India resulting in principal
repayment and interest commitment of Rs.12,826 Crores to
Government per year.
5. Since the project envisages lifting of a huge quantity of
water through multiple stages, the cost of power burden if the
project is run at full capacity works out at a prohibitive cost of
Rs.10,374.56 Crores per annum.
6. On 21.10.2023, some of the piers of Medigadda Barrage
sank into the river bed.
7. On 22.10.2023, National Dam Safety Authority (NDSA)
constituted a committee to examine the reasons for sinking of the
piers of Medigadda (Lakshmi) Barrage. The NDSA committee
inspected Medigadda Barrage on 24.10.2023 and communicated
the report to Government on 01.11.2023. The broad findings of
the Committee are inter alia as follows:
i) The Committee reported that the Piers had sunk due to a
combination of issues involving lacunae and negligence in
planning, design, quality control and Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) of the barrage.
ii) The Committee further opined that the distress condition
developed is adversely affecting the functionality of the
barrage. The barrage under the present condition is
rendered useless until fully rehabilitated.
iii) The Committee was of the view that, filling the reservoir in
the present condition would worsen the barrage’s health and
should not be resorted to.
iv) The Committee observed that the two barrages constructed
upstream of Medigadda under the Kaleshwaram Project,
viz: Annaram and Sundilla barrages, have similar design
46and construction methodologies, making them prone to
similar failure modes.
8. It is also apparent from the Report that after the
inauguration of the Project no operations and maintenance was
carried out by either the private Agency or by the concerned
Department. In fact such acts are even against the Standard
Clauses which were in relation to the maintenance of a Dam.
9. It has also come to light through certain reports that during
the construction of the dam, certain deviations were approved
without appropriate inspection notes. It appears that even the
Defect Liability Period was changed even when work was
pending. The facts which have surfaced by the way of Reports
indicate that the Government Departments and even the private
agency were negligent in undertaking their responsibilities
towards inter alia construction and repair and upkeep of the dam
which has resulted into damages. It is prima facie indicated that
certain deliberate omissions and commissions on part of
functionaries have happened which has resulted into the present
situation.
10. The deviations in the Standard contract and the manner in
which certain aspects of the project construction of certain blocks
were undertaken indicate that interests of general public and state
exchequer has been compromised to favour a select few.
11. From the content of the report, and the visible evidence of
the damage that has occurred to the structure, it appears that
certain irregularities, lack of proper care to ensure quality work,
gross negligence in execution and monitoring of the work, and
other malpractices, lacunae have taken place in the construction of
the barrages at Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla, leading to
major losses to the public exchequer.
12. The casual approach towards the upkeep and safety of the
dam itself compels the Government to look into the entire
conspectus of events and get to the root of the matter.
13. Therefore, Government of Telangana is of the opinion that
it is necessary to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into
the events and circumstances connected with the construction of
the barrages at Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla into the said
allegations of irregularities resulting in huge losses to the public
exchequer.
14. The following Notification shall be published in an
Extraordinary issue of the Telangana State Gazette, dated:
14/03/2024.
47
NOTIFICATION-I
WHEREAS Government of Telangana is of the opinion
that it is necessary to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to inquire
into the events and circumstances connected with the construction
of the barrages at Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla into a
definite matter of public importance hereinafter specified.
2. Now, THEREFORE, in exercise of powers conferred by
Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Central Act
No.60 of 1952), the Government of Telangana hereby appoint
Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Former Judge of Supreme
Court of India, as Commission of Inquiry to conduct Judicial
Inquiry on certain allegations of irregularities and embezzlement
of public funds by corrupt practices in constructing the barrages of
Medigadda and Annaram Reservoirs of Kaleshwaram Project.
3. The above Commission of Inquiry shall have the following
Terms of Reference for inquiry:
i. To enquire into the negligence, irregularities and
lacunae in Planning, Designing and Construction of
Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla Barrages.
ii. To enquire into the manner of award and execution
of Contract including but not limited to deviations
in the contract and following of the strict financial
discipline in the execution of such Contract.
iii. To enquire into the negligence and lacunae in
Operation & Maintenance of three barrages by the
agencies concerned and the Department, thereby
leading to major damage to the structure.
iv. To enquire into the Quality Control & Monitoring
aspects, negligence and other malpractices by the
agencies/ contractors and the Department.
v. To enquire, identify and fix up responsibilities for
any authority/official who extended undue favours
to the Agencies/ contractors in terms of allowing
unjustified EOTS (extension of time), wrong
completion of work certificates, premature
releasing of Bank Guarantees, and such other
matter.
vi. The Commission shall fix responsibilities for the
lapses identified by it during its enquiry into the
above matters and financial implications on the
lapses identified.
vii. Any other matter that might be referred by the
Government at a later date.
48
4. The Commission will hold its sittings at Hyderabad and
will complete its Inquiry and report to State Government by 30th
June, 2024.
5. The Engineer-in-Chief (General), Irrigation & CAD Dept.
shall make arrangements for the remuneration, office
accommodation, mobility, staff, communication and other
necessary infrastructure to conduct the said Inquiry.
6. All the officers concerned shall hand over immediately all
requisite documents and material evidence to the Commission of
Inquiry.
NOTIFICATION – II
Whereas, the Government of Telangana are of the opinion
having regard to the nature of the inquiry to be made by the
Commission and other circumstances of the case that all the
provisions of Sub-Sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Section 5 of the
Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, should be made applicable to
the Commission appointed in the Notification – I above.
2. Now, Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act, the Government of
Telangana hereby direct that all the provisions of the sub-sections
(2), (3), (4) and (5) of Section 5 of the Commissions of Inquiry
Act, 1952 shall apply to the Commission.
(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR
OF TELANGANA)
RAHUL BOJJA
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
40. The petitioners have assailed the impugned G.O.Ms.No.6, dated
14.03.2024 as a ‘judicial inquiry’ beyond the scope and mandate of
Section 3 of the Act of 1952. According to them, the recitals of the
impugned G.O., make it abundantly clear that the Government has
already formed an opinion as regards the culpability of the individuals
based upon the reports of the National Dam Safety Authority. Therefore,
49
since inception the proceedings are legally biased. It has been contended
that WAPCOS was engaged in the year 2014 to investigate, identify and
recommend alternative site for barrage construction. The sites were
identified as Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla. The Government of
Telangana had an intention to cover the irrigation to an extent of
37,08,670 acres. Apart from that the project also intended to cater to the
needs of drinking water to an extent of 40 TMC and water for industrial
purposes, of about 16 TMC. The execution of the project has shown the
highest increase in paddy cultivation in the State of Telangana and is
termed as the Rice Bowl of the country. It is only after the change of the
Government in 2023 that the new Government decided to conduct an
enquiry using a mishap in 2023 where one pillar No.20 in Block 7 of
Medigadda barrage subsided due to various factors including excessive
rainfall during monsoon season. Therefore, the initiation of the
Commission of Inquiry in the nature of judicial inquiry by
G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 14.03.2024 is vitiated.
41. On the part of the respondents-State, copious reference has been
made to Terms of Reference under G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 14.03.2024, to
refute the contention of the petitioner that they are premeditated and pre-
prejudiced. The reference is also made to the Commission of Inquiry
50
constituted by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section
3 of the Act of 1952 consisting of Shri Justice H.R.Khanna of the Delhi
High Court, which was the subject matter in P.V.Jagannath Rao
(supra). In the present case, the Terms of Reference does not refer to the
name of any person in G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 14.03.2024, unlike in the
case of P.V.Jagannath Rao (supra). That the expression ‘judicial
inquiry’ is of no significance as the Commission has been constituted
under the Act of 1952, except that it is presided over by a Former Judge
of the Supreme Court of India. It has been constituted and has performed
its functions within the scope and mandate of Act of 1952. The Report
of the Commission is not acted upon proprio vigore. The State has also
referred to the recommendations of the Expert Committee which had
recommended against the construction of the barrage at Medigadda,. But
the then Chief Minister, KCR has desired alternative locations. It is also
evident from the Report of the Central Water Commission that
administrative approvals were thereafter given for construction of the
Medigadda barrage and the Annaram barrage at the present site. The
respondents-State has also placed reliance on the case of P.Janardhana
Reddy (supra) to submit that there were sufficient materials to form the
basis for subjective satisfaction of the State Government that the matter
is one of the definite public importance into which an enquiry is
51
necessary to be made. The Government was therefore well within its
right to inquire into the lapses and the omission and commission,
negligence and irregularities in the execution of the project and also in
its operation and maintenance through an independent Commission of
Inquiry under the Act of 1952. The report and findings of the
Commission are meant for information of the Government. Under
Section 3(4) of the Act, the appropriate Government is bound to lay the
report before the Legislature together with a memorandum of the action
taken thereon within a period of six months of the submission of the
report by the Commission to the appropriate Government. The Courts,
civil or criminal, are not bound by the report or findings of the
Commission of Inquiry as they have to arrive at their own decision on
the evidence placed before them in accordance with law, as observed in
the case of T.T.Antony (supra). Therefore, the constitution of the
Commission of Inquiry per se is not ultra vires the Act of 1952 or in
violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
42. Upon consideration of the rival submissions of the parties,
materials on record and the wordings and content of G.O.Ms.No.6, dated
14.03.2024, we are of the opinion that the constitution of the
Commission of Inquiry headed by Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Former
52
Judge of the Supreme Court of India, is neither illegal, arbitrary, nor
unconstitutional or ultra vires the provisions of the Act of 1952 or
contrary to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court or the High
Courts. We say so for the following reasons.
43. The National Dam Safety Authority was constituted to examine
the reasons for sinking of the piers of Medigadda (Lakshmi) barrage. It
recorded findings that the piers had sunk due to a combination of issues
involving lacunae and negligence in planning, design, quality control
and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of the barrage. The distress
condition developed adversely affected the functionality of the barrage
rendered useless until fully rehabilitated. It also found that keeping the
reservoir full in the present condition would worsen the barrages and
should not be resorted to. That the two barrages constructed upstream of
Medigadda under the Kaleshwaram Project, i.e., Annaram and Sundilla
barrages had similar design and construction methodologies, making
them prone to similar failure modes. It also indicated negligence of the
Government departments and the private agencies in construction and
repair and upkeep of the dam that has resulted into damages. These acts
indicated certain omissions and commissions on the part of the
functionaries. In this background, the Commission was appointed under
53
the Act of 1952 to undertake the fact finding enquiry upon the Terms of
Reference and to enquire, identify and fix up responsibilities for any
authority/official who extended undue favours to the Agencies/
contractors in terms of allowing unjustified extension of time, wrong
completion of work certificates, premature releasing of Bank Guarantees
and such other matter. The Commission was also entrusted to fix
responsibilities for the lapses identified by it during its enquiry into the
above matters and financial implications on the lapses identified. It was
also indicated that any other matter might be referred by the
Government at a later date.
44. The Commission of such nature is essentially appointed to render
the findings of fact which may not only identify the lapses, negligence
omissions and commissions in execution of the public project involving
substantial expenditure from public exchequer, but also to facilitate
rectification and prevention of recurrence of such lapses. It is also
intended to restore public confidence in the execution of such projects
undertaken by the Government involving considerable expenditure. The
report of such a fact finding inquiry is not acted upon proprio vigore for
inflicting punishments on the persons held responsible in the nature of
an adjudicatory power (see Ram Krishna Dalmia (supra)). Its reports
54
are purely recommendatory and the statement made by the person before
the Commission of Inquiry under Section of the Act of 1952 is wholly
inadmissible in evidence in future proceedings – civil or criminal. The
report forms the basis for taking decisions uninfluenced by the view of
any person or body, howsoever august or high powered, it may be,
involved in such acts of omission or commission, lapses or negligence in
execution of public project involving substantial expenditure. Such an
exercise of statutory power authorised by law cannot be labelled as ultra
vires or without jurisdiction or mala fide. The petitioners have not been
able to show that the Terms of Reference identify the culpability of any
individual or body or agency, in a premeditated manner. The proper test
to be applied in such a case is to see what is the dominant purpose for
which the administrative power is exercised. Reference in this regard is
made to the case of P.V.Jagannath Rao (supra). In the said case, the
State Government had appointed the Commission of Inquiry consisting
of Sri Justice H.R.Khanna of the Delhi High Court (As His Lordship
then was) to inquire into and submit report in respect of various acts of
malfeasance, misfeasance, misappropriation, fraud, negligence,
favouritism, nepotism, illegalities, irregularities, improprieties by the
then Chief Minister and others during the period from 23.06.1961 to
08.03.1967 naming the Chief Ministers and other Ministers in the
55
Schedule to the notification constituting the Commission of Inquiry. The
challenge to the constitution of the Commission was dismissed by the
Delhi High Court. The aggrieved petitioners preferred the Appeals
before the apex court. The apex court applied the dominant test and
came to the opinion that the setting up of the Commission of Inquiry
was to promote measures for maintaining purity and integrity of the
administration in the political life of the State and not the character
assassination of the Chief Minister and their group. The impugned
notification dated 26.10.1967 was held legal and valid. In the present
case, we find that the dominant purpose to appoint the Commission of
Inquiry by the impugned G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 14.03.2024 was to inquire
into the negligence, irregularities and lacunae in planning, designing and
construction of Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla barrages, also the
award and execution of contract, its Operation and Maintenance, quality
control and monitoring aspects and fix up responsibilities on any
authority/official for the lapses including the financial implications on
the lapses identified. None of the petitioners have been named in the
recitals or identified in the Terms of Reference, unlike the case of
P.V.Jagannath Rao (supra).
56
45. Reliance is also placed upon the opinion of the apex court in the
case of Ram Krishna Dalmia (supra), wherein the apex court examined
the scope of Section 3 of the Act of 1952 and held that the Government
has the power to appoint Commission of Inquiry into the administrative
matters of public importance. Therefore, the notification was well within
the powers conferred on the proper Government. It could not be
questioned on the ground that it is acting beyond the provisions of the
Act of 1952. In the light of the above discussion, the mere use of
expression ‘judicial’ in G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 14.03.2024 does not make
the Commission a Judicial Inquiry. It has been constituted to undertake
fact finding enquiry on the terms of reference within the scope and
mandate of the Act of 1952. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion
that the appointment of the Commission is neither illegal, arbitrary,
unconstitutional nor ultra vires the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
46. The next question which falls for consideration is whether the
findings of the Commission are prejudicial and adversely affect the
conduct and reputation of the petitioners and are vitiated for non-
compliance of proper notice under Sections 8B and 8C of the Act of
1952 in violation of principles of natural justice..
57
47. It is pertinent to mention here that the Commission recorded the
statement of 119 witnesses. The petitioners, THR, KCR, SKJ and SS
were examined as C.W.114, C.W.No.115, C.W.92 and C.W.95
respectively.
48. The petitioners, THR and KCR were issued notices, both dated
20.05.2025 calling upon them to appear before the Commission on
09.06.2025 and 05.06.2025 respectively. Upon receipt of the said
notices, they made a request for certain documents on 06.06.2025. The
said documents were supplied to them on 09.06.2025. The notices
issued upon them are of the same language and content. Therefore, the
notice issued to the petitioner, THR, is reproduced hereunder for
appreciation of the issue at hand:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
Former Judge, Supreme Court of India
Former Chairman, Lokpal of IndiaCommission of Inquiry on Kaleshwaram Project
8th Floor, “D” Block, Burgula Ramakrishna Rao (BRKR,)
Bhavan, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad-500063SUMMONS
To
Sri T.Harish Rao
Former Minister for Irrigation
State of Telangana.
Villa No.1025, KRINSS Villas,
NANAKRAMGUDA, Ranga Reddy District.
58
Quarter No.504, 5th Floor, M.S.Block-III,
Old MLA Quarters, Hyderabad-500029.
Whereas, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of
the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, the Government of
Telangana has appointed Hon’ble Sri Justice Pinaki Chandra
Ghose, former Judge, Supreme Court of India and former
Chairman, Lokpal of India as the Commission of Inquiry, vide
G.O.Ms.No.6, Irrigation and CAD (Projects-IV), dated 14th
March, 2024 (published in Part-I Extraordinary Gazette on 14th
March, 2024), to conduct Judicial Inquiry on certain allegations of
irregularities and embezzlement of public funds by corrupt
practices in constructing the barrages of Medigadda, Annaram and
Sundilla of Kaleshwaram Project and the Terms of Reference
under the said Government Order are as under:
i. To enquire into the negligence, irregularities and lacunae in
Planning, Designing and Construction of Medigadda,
Annaram and Sundilla Barrages.
ii. To enquire into the manner of award and execution of
Contract including but not limited to deviations in the
contract and following of the strict financial discipline in the
execution of such Contract.
iii. To enquire into the negligence and lacunae in Operation &
Maintenance of three barrages by the agencies concerned
and the Department, thereby leading to major damage to the
structure.
iv. To enquire into the Quality Control & Monitoring aspects,
negligence and other malpractices by the agencies/
contractors and the Department.
v. To enquire, identify and fix up responsibilities for any
authority/official who extended undue favours to the
Agencies/ contractors in terms of allowing unjustified EOTS
(extension of time), wrong completion of work certificates,
premature releasing of Bank Guarantees, and such other
matter.
vi. The Commission shall fix responsibilities for the lapses
identified by it during its enquiry into the above matters and
financial implications on the lapses identified.
vii. Any other matter that might be referred by the Government
at a later date.
59
Since you are the then Minister for Irrigation and the then
Minister for Finance for the State of Telangana during the relevant
period of Planning, Awarding of Contracts, Designing,
Construction and Inauguration of the Medigadda, Annaram and
Sundilla barrages, this Commission is of the opinion to examine
and hear you upon the Terms of Reference before this
Commission. Therefore, you are hereby requested to attend before
this Commission on Monday the 9th day of June, 2025 at 11.30
am for examination. You are at liberty to produce documents/
records upon which you desire to rely upon and/or to place before
this Commission for consideration. A copy of G.O.Ms.No.6,
Irrigation and CAD (Projects-IV) Department, dated 14.3.2024 is
enclosed herewith.
Given by order and under the authority and seal of the
Commission of Inquiry
on this the 20th day of May, 2025.
Secretary to the Commission of Inquiry
49. Both the petitioners, THR and KCR made their statements before
the Commission on 09.06.2025 and 11.06.2025 respectively.
50. The summons, dated 08.07.2024 and 12.07.2024 issued upon the
petitioners, SKJ and SS respectively are identical but conspicuously
different in their language and content from that of the other two
petitioners, THR and KCR. They are asked to attend the meeting with
the Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry on 15.07.2024. One of the
said summons is extracted as under:
Hon’ble Mr Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Commission of Inquiry on Kaleshwaram Project8th Floor, D-Block BRKR Bhavan, Tank Bund Road,
Hyderabad-500063
[email protected]
60Letter No. dated 08.07.2024.
SUMMONS
Vide G.O.Ms.No.6, Irrigation and CAD (Projects-IV) Department,
dated 14.3.2024, the Government of Telangana has appointed
Hon’ble Mr Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, former Judge, Supreme
Court of India and former Chairman, Lokpal of India as
Commission of Inquiry to conduct judicial inquiry on certain
allegations of irregularities and embezzlement of public funds by
corrupt practices in constructing the barrages of Medigadda,
Annaram and Sundilla of Kaleshwaram Project. The Terms of
Reference for inquiry are:
i. To enquire into the negligence, irregularities and lacunae in
Planning, Designing and Construction of Medigadda,
Annaram and Sundilla Barrages.
ii. To enquire into the manner of award and execution of
Contract including but not limited to deviations in the
contract and following of the strict financial discipline in the
execution of such Contract.
iii. To enquire into the negligence and lacunae in Operation &
Maintenance of three barrages by the agencies concerned
and the Department, thereby leading to major damage to the
structure.
iv. To enquire into the Quality Control & Monitoring aspects,
negligence and other malpractices by the agencies/
contractors and the Department.
v. To enquire, identify and fix up responsibilities for any
authority/official who extended undue favours to the
Agencies/ contractors in terms of allowing unjustified EOTS
(extension of time), wrong completion of work certificates,
premature releasing of Bank Guarantees, and such other
matter.
vi. The Commission shall fix responsibilities for the lapses
identified by it during its enquiry into the above matters and
financial implications on the lapses identified.
vii. Any other matter that might be referred by the Government
at a later date.
Therefore, you are requested to attend the Meeting with the
Hon’ble Chairman, Commission of Inquiry on Monday the
6115th day of July, 2024 at 11.00 am in the Office of the Hon’ble
Commission of Inquiry in connection with the inquiry and further
request you to furnish information on such points or matters as,
may be useful for, or relevant to, the subject matter of the inquiry.
// By order of the Hon’ble Chairman, Commission of Inquiry //
SECRETARY to the Commission of Inquiry
To
Sri S K Joshi IAS
Former Secretary to Govt of Telangana
Irrigation Department.
51. The petitioners, SKJ and SS have submitted their affidavits
before the Commission on 21.07.2024 and 01.08.2024 respectively. The
gist of their affidavits reflect the positions which they held and their role
in the decision making process. Both the petitioners did not make any
incriminating statements in their affidavits regarding their involvement
in the decision making process which led to the execution of the project
and later sinking of the piers of the Medigadda barrage on 21.10.2023.
52. After 4 months of submission of their affidavits filed on
21.07.2024 and 01.08.2024, the petitioners, SKJ and SS were
telephonically asked to appear before the Commission to make
statements. The petitioner SKJ appeared on 18.12.2024 when his
statements were recorded as C.W.92. The petitioner SS appeared before
the Commission on 19.12.2024. The Commission recorded her
statements as C.W.95.
62
53. The Commission submitted its Report on 31.07.2025 to the
Government. The report was tabled before the Legislative Assembly on
31.08.2025. A Press Conference was held on 04.08.2025 by the
Government in which the findings of the Commission were shown by
way of power point presentation. All the petitioners, thereupon, claimed
to have knowledge of the findings made by the Commission against
them. They have also assailed the findings of the Commission as being
prejudicial, scurrilous, mala fide as against them rendered without
following the procedure prescribed under Sections 8B and 8C of the Act
of 1952 in the teeth of principles of natural justice.
54. The petitioners have culled out some of the findings rendered
against them in the Report dated 31.07.2025 by the Commission as
being adverse and prejudicial to their conduct and reputation. The
relevant findings as are borne on the records of each of these writ
petitions are extracted hereunder in order to examine whether they are
prejudicial in nature and adverse affect the conduct and reputation of the
petitioners:
Petitioner (THR):
a. That, “Along with the Chief Minister, “intentionally
have not considered the Report of the Expert Committee””.
63
b. That “It can be categorically held that there is rank
irregularity from the stage of conceptualization of Kaleshwaram
project till the issuance of Administrative approvals on 1.3.2016
for construction of the three barrages. This is not the decision of
the Government but of individuals.”
c. That “The proposal and the decision to construct
barrages at Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla is of the then
Minister for Irrigation and Chief Minister”.
d. That “Letter from Ms. Uma Bharti, the then MoWR,
dated 13.3.2015 has stated that Hydrology of the PCSS project
was cleared on 24.10.2014. However project authorities vide their
letter dated 24.11.2014 have submitted the modified hydrological
series for approval…” Minister for Irrigation made an endorsement
on the said letter on 20.3.2015.When the CWC has already cleared
Hydrology of Dr BRAPCSS project as back as on 24.10.2014, the
reason for the project authorities to submit modified hydrological
series for approval of the CWC is not forthcoming.”
e. That “Retired engineers committee constituted vide GO
No.28″ … the expert committee had extensively studied the merits
and demerits of the barrage being constructed at Tummidihetti and
at Medigadda and concluded that the construction of barrage at
Medigadda is not advisable and also not economical. On the other
hand, the Expert committee recommended to construct barrage at
Vemanapally on Pranahita river instead of at Medigadda.”
f. That “The said Expert Committee stated in their Note
submitted to this Commission on 25.6.2024 that they have
submitted their Report titled “Barrages on Godavari and
Pranahitha Rivers” on 7.4.2015 to the Minister for Irrigation,
Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Engineer-in- Chief
(Irrigation)….” Sri T.Harish Rao has not denied in his evidence the
submission of the report by the Expert committee on 7.4.2015″
g. That “It should be held that Sri S.K.Joshi, Sri
C.Muralidhar and Sri B.Hari Ram suppressed the Report of the
Expert Committee with malicious intention to enable the then
Minister for Irrigation and the then Chief Minister to go ahead
with their intention to construct barrage at Medigadda. Thus by
suppressing this Report, they facilitated to construct barrage at
Medigadda and they indulged in this malicious act at the cost of
huge public money and putting the economy of the State at stake”.
The commission has noted on suppression of the report of the
expert committee that “The action to be taken shall be severe for
the reason that had this Report not been suppressed, construction
of barrage at Medigadda could not have been taken up”.
h. That “The Note File is signed by the Principal Secretary
to Government (Irrigation) on 26.2.2016, the Minister for
Irrigation on 26.2.2016 and also by the then Chief Minister. Since
the approval of the Cabinet is not obtained, there is violation of
the Business Rules of the Government. An analysis of the above
factual position would lead to one and only categorical conclusion
64that the conception of Kaleshwaram project, the proposal of
entrusting the consultancy services for preparation of DPR in
respect of KP to WAPCOS and according administrative approval
in that regard is the sole and individual decision of the Minister
(Irrigation) and the Chief Minister”
i. That “In the present case, the shifting of location of
barrage to Medigadda on the alleged ground of availability of
water is the decision of the then CM and this decision is taken
suppressing the report of the Expert Committee under G.O 28.
Right from the beginning till the stage of inauguration of the
barrages by impounding water at the peril of the health of the
barrages is done with the instructions of the then CM. The then
Minister for Finance and Planning remained as a tacit perpetrator
and the then Minister for Irrigation allowed the then Chief
Minister to fulfil his desire. In fact, the then CM being political
executive functioned as Administrative executive also in
implementing the policy of the Government and the manner of
planning and execution caused huge loss to the state public
exchequer.
j. “It can conclusively be held that the issuance of G.O Rt
Nos.231, 232 dated 1.3.2016, according Administrative approval
of Rs.2591 crores for construction of Medigadda project is not
placed before the cabinet and is issued pursuant to the orders of
the Minister (Irrigation) and the Chief Minister.”
k. That “The Commission does not see any compelling
urgency in taking such decisions by the Minister (Irrigation) and
the Chief Minister alone and this irregularity is more so in the
light of the fact that the cabinet has not ratified the same”. “21. 1.
When the Government Orders 231, 232 and 233 are not placed
before the Cabinet for approval/ratification and thereby there is
violation of the Business Rules of the Government, the Minister
for Irrigation and the Chief Minister shall also be held liable for
violation of the Business Rules of the Government. In this regard,
the evidence of the then Minister for Irrigation is false and cannot
be substantiate his deposition.
l. That “Acted complicity, allowing CM to take over the
administrative role.
n. The then Minister for Irrigation gave instructions at
random and Minister for Finance and Planning conducted himself
apathetical towards the Finance and economical health of the
State, it is the then CM who can be directly and vicariously
accountable for the irregularities and the illegalities in planning,
construction, completion, Operation & Maintenance of the three
barrages. One such example that Govt has brought to the notice of
the Commission the then Irrigation Minister has instructed to
adopt secant piles in the meeting dated 09.01.2017.”
65
19. The Commission further fixed responsibility upon the
petitioner as under:
a. “Political Executives Held Liable: The lapses related to
Political Executives i.e., the then Chief Minister Sri. K.
Chandrasekhar Rao, the then Minister for Irrigation Sri. T.Harish
Rao and the then Minister for Finance Sri Etela Rajendar”.
b. “The Commission concludes that the entire project was
characterized by ‘rampant and brazen procedural and financial
irregularities’. The report underscores that the Kaleshwaram
project, intended as a ‘lifeline of the State of Telangana’, became
a colossal waste of public money due to a profound failure of
governance, planning, technical oversight, and financial
discipline, driven by the individual decisions and undue influence
of political leadership. The Commission of Inquiry Report dated
31.07.2025, pertaining to allegations of irregularities and
embezzlement of public funds through corrupt practices in the
construction of the Medigadda, Annaram, and Sundilla barrages of
the Kaleshwaram Project, is now placed.”
Petitioner (KCR):
The Commission found that the Petitioner:
a. Is “directly and also vicariously accountable for the
irregularities and the illegalities in planning, construction,
completion, operation and maintenance of the three barrages.” His
“involvement and directions minutely… is the cause and result of
irregularities and the cause of distress to these three barrages.”
b. That “It can be categorically held that there is rank
irregularity from the stage of conceptualization of Kaleshwaram
project till the issuance of Administrative approvals on 1.3.2016
for construction of the three barrages. This is not the decision of
the Government but of individuals.”
c. That “The then Chief Minister is pre-determined and bent
upon to construct barrage at Medigadda at his free choice and the
authorities associated with the decision making facilitated them.”
d. That “The decision of construction of barrage at
Medigadda and also at Annaram and Sundilla is solely of the then
Chief Minister”.
e. That “It is abundantly clear that the Government has not
considered the report of the Expert Committee constituted under
G.O.Rt. No. 28, dated 21.1.2015”
f. That “It can conclusively be held that the issuance of
G.O. Rt. Nos.231, 232 and 233, dated 1.3.2016, according
Administrative approval of Rs.2591 crores for construction of
66Medigadda project is not placed before the cabinet and is issued
pursuant to the orders of the Minister (Irrigation) and the Chief
Minister.”
g. That “The Commission does not see any compelling
urgency in taking such decisions by the Minister (Irrigation)
and the Chief Minister alone and this irregularity is more so in
the light of the fact that the cabinet has not ratified the same.”
h. That “In the review meeting dated 9.12.2017, the Chief
Minister directed to entrust the additional works not covered in the
scope of agreements to the existing agencies.”
i. That “The Government agreed to execute coffer dam and
guide bunds which were in the contractor’s scope of work, citing
verbal instructions from the Chief Minister. This resulted in
huge additional burden on the exchequer. Works worth ₹369 crore
were added in RE-1 without basis in DPR, which the
Commission termed ‘clinching evidence’ of an intent to siphon
public funds to unduly favour agency.
j. That “One of the factors for failure of proper operation
and maintenance and consequential failure of the barrage is on
account of impounding of water. It has categorically been
observed and held that the then Chief Minister has directed
the authorities to store water in the barrages to their full
capacity for the purpose of lifting of water through pump
houses. Therefore, the then Chief Minister acted against the
interests of the State and have no sincere, honest and
conscientious mind to protect and safeguard the three
barrages constructed at huge cost of thousands of crores of
public money. The Chief Minister acted not as the head of the
Government but as the administrative executive himself.”
k. That “Involvement and directions of the then Chief
Minister minutely towards planning, construction and operation of
these three barrages is the cause and result of irregularities and
distress to these three barrages”. From the formation of the State
of Telangana on 2.6.2014 till 1.3.2016 (the date of granting
Administrative Approvals for construction of these three barrages)
it is the sole decision of the then Chief Minister from the stage of
conceptualization of Kaleshwaram Project, allegedly as part of re-
engineering of the Dr BRA PCSS Project and to take up
construction of these three barrages. The alleged non-availability
of water at Tummidi Hetti is not the correct and the decision of
construction of barrage at Medigadda and also at Annaram and
Sundilla is solely of the then Chief Minister.”
1. That regarding “Continuous Impounding of Water: The
then Chief Minister directed continuous impounding of water in
the barrages to their full capacity for lifting water through pump
houses, even though barrages are typically ‘diversion structures
with low head, not as storage structures. This continuous
impounding was a major cause for distress.”
67
19. The Commission purportedly fixed responsibility on
the petitioner, THR and KCR, as follows:
a. “Political Executives Held Liable: The lapses related to
Political Executives i.e., the then Chief Minister Sri.
K.Chandrasekhar Rao, the then Minister for Irrigation Sri.
T.Harish Rao and the then Minister for Finance Sri Etela
Rajendar”
b. “The Commission concludes that the entire project was
characterized by ‘rampant and brazen procedural and financial
irregularities’. The report underscores that the Kaleshwaram
project, intended as a ‘lifeline of the State of Telangana’, became
a colossal waste of public money due to a profound failure of
governance, planning, technical oversight, and financial
discipline, driven by the individual decisions and undue influence
of political leadership. The Commission of Inquiry report dated
31.07.2025, pertaining to allegations of irregularities and
embezzlement of public funds through corrupt practices in the
construction of the Medigadda, Annaram, and Sundilla barrages of
the Kaleshwaram Project, is now placed.”
Petitioner (SKJ):
“Sri S.K.Joshi, IAS (examined as C.W.92) was the
Principal Secretary to Government, Irrigation Department, from
12.01.2015 to 31.01.2018…. They have not chosen even to
whisper in their affidavit evidence or oral evidence regarding the
constitution of the Expert Committee under G.O.Rt.No.28 and/or
the submission of the Report by the said Expert Committee. Their
silence on this crucial aspect is inexplicable and their conduct in
discharge of their duties is not fair.”
“Sri S.K.Joshi, in the capacities of Principal Secretary to
Government/Special Chief Secretary to Government and the Chief
Secretary to Government, has signed G.O.Rt.No.212, G.O.
Rt.No.776 and G.O.Rt.Nos.607 to 611. He also stated in his
affidavit that the ‘administrative sanctions were accorded for
different components over a period of time after approval by the
competent authority (Council of Ministers, Chief Minister/
concerned Minister). This is a false statement made by him.”
“The irresponsibility and impropriety of ….. (b) Sri S.K.
Joshi… in these facts and circumstances, the proposal for revised
administrative approval and the decision to accord revised
administrative approval on these grounds involving huge amounts
of public money shall have to be presumed to be tainted with
malice on the part of the authorities who had proposed and also on
the part of the authorities who were involved in taking the
68decision to accord revised administrative approval. All these
authorities shall be held to be dishonest in their duties and
dishonest to the high offices they held, and they shall be held to
have caused, without diligence, huge expenditure from the State
exchequer, without verifying the pros and cons of the matter in
case of public governance.”
“Sri S.K. Joshi, IAS, the Principal Secretary to
Government, I&CAD Department is also the Chairman of KIPCL.
He cannot be oblivious to the fact that the projects to be taken up
by KIPCL shall be Turnkey Projects. Since the Government Order
setting up KIPCL specifically and in unequivocal terms states that
the projects to be taken up by KIPCL shall be Turnkey Projects,
and the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation System is to be funded by
KIPCL and to be taken up by KIPCL, Sri S.K.Joshi, being the
Principal Secretary to Government, I&CAD Department, and also
the Chairman of KIPCL, is not expected to put up a note
mentioning that the earlier system of EPC has been dispensed with
and LS system of awarding work is being considered.”
“Sri S.K.Joshi, IAS, Principal Secretary to Government,
Irrigation Department … are liable for action for intentionally
suppressing the Report of the Expert Committee constituted under
G.O.Rt.No.28 with an oblique motive to enable the Government to
go ahead with its resolve to construct the barrage at Medigadda.
Appropriate action shall be taken against them in accordance with
law. The action to be taken shall be severe, for the reason that had
this Report not been suppressed, the construction of the barrage at
Medigadda could not have been taken up.”
“Appropriate action in accordance with law shall be taken
against Sri S.K.Joshi, IAS, Principal Secretary to Government …
for committing irregularities and violating the Business Rules of
the Government by not placing the file relating to G.O.Rt.No.212,
dated 13.04.2015, and G.O.Rt.No.40, dated 18.01.2016, before the
Cabinet for approval (though G.O.Rt.No. 212 was subsequently
ratified by the Cabinet on 03.06.2016).”
“Appropriate action in accordance with law shall be taken
against Sri S. K.Joshi, IAS. Principal Secretary to Government,
Irrigation Department for committing irregularities and violating
the Business Rules of the Government by not placing the file
relating to G.O.Rt.Nos.231, 232, and 233, dated 01.03.2016 before
the Cabinet for approval.”
Petitioner (SS):
a. That, “The Agency-L&T PES JV filed photographs of
the Medigadda barrage site taken during the course of construction
of the barrage. Some of those photographs show Smt. Smitha
Sabharwal reviewing the progress of the construction. It may have
to be noted that in the said photographs, either the Minister
69(Irrigation), Minister (Finance & Planning) or the Chief Minister
are not seen and further she also stated in her oral evidence that
“in respect of all the subjects I was actively touring the districts
causing feed back to the CM in respect of inter-departmental
coordination with Collectors, Forest Department, neighbouring
States, and intervening in order to take the projects forward”.
Inference can be drawn from these circumstances that Smt. Smitha
Sabharwal visited the three barrages construction sites in the
capacity of the Special Secretary to CMO to review the progress
of the three barrages.” (Pg No. 166 of the Report)
b. That, “Mrs. Smitha Sabharwal is the Secretary to the
Government and belongs to the Indian Administrative Service and
it must be presumed that she must have been taken as Secretary to
the Chief Minister in that capacity. The File Notes placed before
the Chief Minister contained observations of the Finance
Department that the approvals/permissions shall be obtained as
per the Business Rules of the Government and she states in her
oral evidence that “all files which were put up by CMO for CM
approval had necessary concurrences and Business Rules
compliance”. As part of the secretarial assistance to the Chief
Minister, holding the cadre under Indian Administrative Service,
and having herself stated in her affidavit that her role as Secretary
to Chief Minister is to coordinate among different departments of
the Government, it is very much ordained on her to verify whether
the Business Rules of the Government are followed before placing
the Files for orders before the Chief Minister. As is observed in
the files relating to grant of Administrative Approvals, the Finance
Department made endorsements to the effect that the approval of
the competent authority as per the Business Rules shall be
obtained. Mrs. Smitha Sabharwal also stated in her answer to
question 14 that if any flag or deviation by any of the processing
authorities such as Chief Secretary was put on file, it was her duty
to inform the same and brief the Chief Minister. The G.O.Rt.
Nos.231, 232 and 233 granting Administrative Approvals for
construction of Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla barrages
are not placed before the Cabinet for approval/ratification
and thus there is violation of Business Rules of the
Government.” (Pg No. 166 of the Report)c. That, “Therefore, Mrs Smita Sabharwal, as
Additional Secretary to the Chief Minister and Secretary to
the Chief Minister must be held to be not diligent, is negligent
and irresponsible in the discharge of her duties and she is also
liable for action for violation of the Business Rules of the
Government. In the circumstances, appropriate action shall be
taken against her.” (Pg No. 167 of the Report)
70
14. In view of the aforementioned scathing remarks,
the Commission purportedly fixed responsibility as follows:
“Appropriate action in accordance with law shall be taken
against Sri S.K.Joshi IAS, Principal Secretary to Government,
Irrigation Department and Smt. Smita Sabharwal, Additional
Secretary to Chief Minister (SS) for committing irregularity and
violation of the Business Rules of the Government in not placing
the File relating to G.O.Rt.No.212, dated 13.4.2015 and
G.O.Rt.No.40, dated 18.1.2016 before the Cabinet for approval.
(though G.O.Rt.No.212 is ratified by the Cabinet on 3.6.2016).”
(Pg No. 634)
And “Appropriate action in accordance with law shall be
taken against Sri S.K.Joshi IAS, Principal Secretary to
Government, Irrigation Department and Smt. Smita Sabharwal,
Additional Secretary to Chief Minister (SS) for committing
irregularity and violation of the Business Rules of the Government
in not placing the File relating to G.O.Rt.Nos.231, 232 and 233,
dated 1.3.2016 before the Cabinet for approval.”(Pg No. 635)
55. The petitioners have strongly contended that the above findings
are seriously prejudicial and defamatory against them. They have also
challenged them as being illegal, arbitrary, premeditated and actuated by
mala fides without following the statutory safeguard under Sections 8B
and 8C of the Act of 1952 in violation of principles of natural justice.
56. The respondents-State in its reply have adverted to the materials
relied upon by the Commission to render findings as against the
petitioners. The materials referred to by the State include the Reports of
the Expert Committee dated 07.04.215; the National Dam Safety
Authority; the Cabinet Sub-committee; the State Level Standing
Committee; the Report of the CAG; the resolutions of the Cabinet and
71
other official documents. On behalf of the State, the State Government
has taken the plea that the petitioners were fully aware of the documents
relied upon by the Commission on which they were asked to depose.
The petitioners, THR and KCR were supplied all the documents on
09.06.2025 on their request. All these documents were made available to
them when they made their statements i.e., 09.06.2025 and 11.06.2025
respectively. The other petitioners SKJ and SS were Government
officials, whose Conduct Rules require them to assist the Commission in
such enquiry based upon official documents such as above. It is also
their case that neither Sections 8B and 8C of the Act of 1952 nor the
Rules framed thereunder specify a particular format for issuance of
summons. Moreover, mere non-mentioning of the provision does not
invalidate the power conferred upon by the Commission to issue a notice
in the nature contemplated under Sections 8B and 8C of the Act of 1952.
The petitioners, THR and KCR, both were legally aware of the
procedure adopted by the Commission having challenged the
constitution of the Commission headed by Justice L.Narasimha Reddy,
constituted vide G.O.Ms.9, dated 14.03.2024 in W.P.No.16588 of 2024.
The petitioners having consciously participated in the proceedings,
thereby acquiesced in the procedure adopted by the Commission and are
now estopped by their conduct in questioning the same. Moreover, the
72
findings of the Commission are in respect of the public duty required to
be performed by the petitioners in their capacity as Irrigation Minister,
Chief Minister, Special Secretary to the Chief Minister and Chief
Secretary in the Government during the relevant point of time. It has
also been submitted that the findings of the Commission do not reflect
upon the conduct or reputation of the person but is limited to the
discharge of their public duties. This Court in exercise of writ
jurisdiction would refrain from interfering in the findings of the
Commission derived after detailed inquiry and after reasonable
opportunity to the petitioners touching upon the acts committed by them
in discharge of their public duties.
57. On the other hand, according to the petitioners, the notice issued
upon them conformed to the requirement of Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules
of 1972 to appear and depose as a witness before the Commission.
However, if the Commission during the course of proceedings was of
the opinion that its findings would adversely comment upon the conduct
and reputation of the petitioners, the incriminating materials ought to
have been conveyed to them by way of notice under Section 8B of the
Act of 1952 to enable them to properly defend themselves. In this
regard, the petitioners have relied upon the cases of Kiran Bedi (supra),
73
Lal Krishna Advani (supra), Jai Prakash Associates (supra), Sanjay
Gupta (supra) and ECIL vs. B.Karunakar (supra). The petitioners
have also contended that the right to cross-examine the witnesses whose
incriminating statements were relied upon by the Commission to render
its findings against the petitioners was denied. The petitioners, SKJ and
SS both have contended that they were not served any summons or
notice to depose before the Commission to defend themselves in the
manner contemplated under Section 8B of the Act of 1952 nor were they
supplied any documents which were the basis of the adverse findings
against them. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the Commission is in
violation of principles of natural justice and the statutory safeguard
contained in Sections 8B and 8C of the Act of 1952.
58. In order to appreciate the issue at hand, it is necessary to extract
relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules, which prescribe the
procedure to be followed by the Commission. Sections 4, 5, 5A, 6, 8, 8B
and 8C of the Act of 1952 and Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules, 1972 are
extracted as under:
4. Powers of Commission:- The Commission shall have the
powers of a civil court, while trying a suit under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of the following matters,
namely:–
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person
from any part of India and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
74
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from
any court or office;
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses
or documents;
(f) any other matter which may be prescribed.
5. Additional Powers of Commission:- (1) Where the
appropriate Government is of opinion that, having regard to the
nature of the inquiry to be made and other circumstances of the
case, all or any of the provisions of sub-section (2) or sub-section
(3) or sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) should be made applicable
to a Commission, the appropriate Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, direct that all or such of the
said provisions as may be specified in the notification shall apply
to that Commission and on the issue of such a notification, the
said provisions shall apply accordingly.
(2) The Commission shall have power to require any person,
subject to any privilege which may be claimed by that person
under any law for the time being in force, to furnish information
on such points or matters as, in the opinion of the Commission,
may be useful for, or relevant to, the subject-matter of the inquiry
and any person so required shall be deemed to be legally bound to
furnish such information within the meaning of Section 176 and
Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(3) The Commission or any officer, not below the rank of a
gazetted officer, specially authorised in this behalf by the
Commission may enter any building or place where the
Commission has reason to believe that any books of account or
other documents relating to the subject-matter of the inquiry may
be found, and may seize any such books of account or documents
or take extracts or copies therefrom, subject to the provisions of
Section 102 and Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898 (5 of 1898), in so far as they may be applicable.
(4) The Commission shall be deemed to be a civil court and
when any offence as is described in Section 175, Section 178,
Section 179, Section 180 or Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860), is committed in the view or presence of the
Commission, the Commission may, after recording the facts
constituting the offence and the statement of the accused as
provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898),
forward the case to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the
same and the Magistrate to whom any such case is forwarded shall
proceed to hear the complaint against the accused as if the case
had been forwarded to him under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898.
(5) Any proceeding before the Commission shall be deemed
to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and
228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
75
5-A. Power of Commission to utilise the services of
certain officers and investigation agencies for conducting
investigation pertaining to inquiry:- (1) The Commission may,
for the purpose of conducting any investigation pertaining to the
inquiry, utilise the services,–
(a) in the case of a Commission appointed by the
Central Government, of any officer or investigation
agency of the Central Government or any State
Government with the concurrence of the Central
Government or the State Government, as the case
may be; or
(b) in the case of a Commission appointed by the State
Government, of any officer or investigation agency
of the State Government or Central Government
with the concurrence of the State Government or
the Central Government, as the case may be.
(2) For the purpose of investigation into any matter pertaining
to the inquiry, any officer or agency whose services are utilised
under sub-section (1) may, subject to the direction and control of
the Commission,–
(a) summon and enforce the attendance of any person
and examine him;
(b) require the discovery and production of any
document; and
(c) requisition any public record or copy thereof from
any office.
(3) The provisions of Section 6 shall apply in relation to any
statement made by a person before any officer or agency whose
services are utilised under sub-section (1) as they apply in relation
to any statement made by a person in the course of giving
evidence before the Commission.
(4) The officer or agency, whose services are utilised under
sub-section (1), shall investigate into any matter pertaining to the
inquiry and submit a report thereon (hereafter in this section
referred to as the investigation report) to the Commission within
such period as may be specified by the Commission in this behalf.
(5) The Commission shall satisfy itself about the correctness
of the facts stated and the conclusions, if any, arrived at in the
investigation report submitted to it under sub-section (4), and for
this purpose the Commission may make such inquiry (including
the examination of the person or persons who conducted or
assisted in the investigation) as it thinks fit.]
6. Statements made by persons to the Commission:- No
statement made by a person in the course of giving evidence
before the Commission shall subject him to, or be used against
him in any civil or criminal proceeding except a prosecution for
giving false evidence by such statement:
Provided that the statement–
76
(a) is made in reply to a question which he is required
by the Commission to answer, or
(b) is relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry.
8-B.Persons likely to be prejudicially affected to be
heard.–If, at any state of the inquiry, the Commission–
(i) considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any
person; or
(ii) is of opinion that the reputation of any person is likely to
be prejudicially affected by the inquiry,
the Commission shall give to that person a reasonable opportunity
of being heard in the inquiry and to produce evidence in his
defence:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply where the
credit of a witness is being impeached.
8-C.Right of cross-examination and representation by legal
practitioner.–The appropriate Government, every person referred
to in Section 8-B and, with the permission of the Commission, any
other person whose evidence is recorded by the Commission–
(a) may cross-examine a witness other than a witness
produced by it or him;
(b) may address the Commission; and
(c) may be represented before the Commission by a legal
practitioner or, with the permission of the Commission, by any
other person.
The Commissions of Inquiry (Central) Rules, 1972:
4. The issue and service of summons.–(1) A Commission
may issue summons to persons whose attendance before it may be
required either to give evidence or to produce documents.
(2) Every summons issued by a Commission shall be in
duplicate and shall be signed by the Chairman thereof or by such
person as he may empower in this behalf. It shall be sealed with
the seal of the Commission and shall specify the time and place at
which the person summoned is required to attend and also whether
his attendance is required for the purpose of giving evidence or to
produce a document, or for both the purposes.
(3) A person may be summoned to produce a document,
without being summoned to give evidence and any person
summoned merely to produce a document shall be deemed to have
complied with the summons if he causes such document to be
produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.
(4) A summons to produce documents may be for the
production of all documents of a certain description in the
possession or control of the person summoned.
77
(5) Every summons shall be served by sending it by post to
the person, for whom it is intended or in such other manner as the
Commission may direct.
(6) The provisions of sub-rules (1) to (5) shall apply, as far as
may be, to every other process issued by a Commission.
5. Procedure of Inquiry.–(1) A Commission may sit in
public or in private as it thinks fit:
Provided that a Commission shall sit in private on a request
being made by the Central Government in that behalf.
(2) A Commission shall, as soon as may be after its
appointment–
(a) issue a notice to every person, who in its opinion
should be given an opportunity of being heard in
the inquiry, to furnish to the Commission a
statement relating to such matters as may be
specified in the notice;
(b) issue a notification, to be published in such manner
as it may deem fit, inviting all persons acquainted
with the subject matter of the inquiry to furnish to
the Commission a statement relating to such
matters as may be specified in the notification.
(3) Every statement furnished under clause (a) of sub-rule (2)
shall be accompanied by an affidavit in support of the facts set out
in the statement sworn by the person furnishing the statement.
(4) Every person furnishing a statement under clause (a) of
sub-rule (2) shall also furnish to the Commission along with the
statement a list of the documents, if any, on which he proposes to
rely and forward to the Commission, wherever practicable, the
originals or true copies of such of the documents as may be in his
possession or control and shall state the name and address of the
person from whom the remaining documents may be obtained.
(5)(a) A Commission shall examine all the statements
furnished to it under clause (b) of sub-rule (2) and if, after such
examination, the Commission considers it necessary to record
evidence, it shall first record the evidence, if any, produced by the
Central Government and may thereafter record evidence in such
order as it may deem fit–
(i) the evidence of any person who has furnished a
statement under clause (a) of sub-rule (2) and
whose evidence the Commission having regard to
the statement, considers relevant for the purpose of
the inquiry; and
(ii) the evidence of any other person whose evidence,
in the opinion of the Commission, is relevant to the
inquiry:
Provided that the Commission may dispense with the
attendance of any person for the purpose of giving evidence
before it, if in its opinion–
78
(i) such attendance cannot be enforced except by
causing undue hardship or inconvenience to that
person;
(ii) such attendance should be dispensed with for any
other sufficient reason to be recorded by it in
writing.
(b) if after all the evidence is recorded under clause (a), the
Commission is satisfied that it is necessary for the proper
determination of any relevant fact to do so, it may recall any
witness already examined or examine any new witness.
(6) The Commission may pay the travelling and other
expenses to a person who is summoned to assist the Commission
at the stage of preliminary investigation or to give evidence or to
produce documents before a Commission, as prescribed from time
to time by the Central Government.
(7) The Commission shall have the powers of a civil court to
make local investigation, either personally or through any person,
duly authorised by it into any matters falling within its terms of
reference.
(8) A Commission shall have the power to regulate its own
procedure in respect of any matter for which no provision is made
in these rules.
59. It is pertinent to state that Sections 8B and 8C of the Act of 1952
were introduced by the Amendment Act 79 of 1971 with effect from
30.12.1971, almost two decades after the enactment of the main Act.
The object behind the introduction of Section 8B in the statute book by
Amendment Act 79 of 1971 has been discussed in the case of Lal
Krishna Advani (supra) at paragraph 8 as under:
“8. It may be noticed that the amendment was brought
about, about 20 years after passing of the main Act itself. The
experience during the past two decades must have made the
legislature realize that it would but be necessary to notice a person
whose conduct the Commission considers necessary to inquire
into during the course of the inquiry or whose reputation is likely
to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry. It is further provides
that such a person would have a reasonable opportunity of being
heard and to adduce evidence in his defence. Thus the principles
of natural justice were got inducted in the shape of a statutory
provision. It is thus incumbent upon the Commission to give an
opportunity to a person, before any comment is made or opinion is
79expressed which is likely to prejudicially affect that person.
Needless to emphasise that failure to comply with the principles of
natural justice renders the action non est as well as the
consequences thereof.”
60. As held above, the principles of natural justice got inducted in the
shape of a statutory provision making it incumbent upon the
Commission to give an opportunity of hearing before any comment is
made or opinion is expressed, which is likely to prejudicially affect that
person. As held in the above case, failure to comply with the principles
of natural justice would render the action non est as well as the
consequences thereof. A careful reading of the statutory scheme, which
prescribes the procedure for the Commission in the conduct of an
inquiry, shows that Section 4 confers the Commission with the power of
the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 inter alia for
summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining
him on oath; requiring the discovery and production of any document;
receiving evidence on affidavits; requisitioning any public record and
issue commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents. This
provision is the source of power for ensuring the attendance and
examination of witnesses for collecting evidence in the course of the
Commission’s fact finding function.
80
61. Under G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 14.03.20224, the Commission has
also been conferred the additional powers under Section 5 of the Act of
1952. Section 5(2) confers power upon the Commission to require
information from any person on the points which in the opinion of the
Commission may be useful for, or relevant to, the subject matter of the
inquiry. Any person so required shall be deemed to be legally bound to
furnish such information within the meaning of Sections 176 and 177 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is the investigative tool during the stage
of enquiry for obtaining information from any person. This provision
does not confer any specific right of legal representation upon the person
so summoned. Section 5A confers power upon the Commission to
utilise the services of certain officers and investigation agencies for
conducting investigation pertaining to inquiry. Section 6 provides that
no statement made by a person in the course of giving evidence before
the Commission shall subject him to, or be used against him in any civil
or criminal proceeding except a prosecution for giving false evidence,
provided that the statement is made in reply to a question which he is
required by the Commission to answer, or is relevant to the subject
matter of the inquiry. Section 8 provides that the Commission shall,
subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, have power to
regulate its own procedure including the fixing of place and times of its
81
sittings and deciding whether to sit in public or in private. In the
aforesaid scheme of the Act, Sections 8B and 8C were introduced by
amendment with effect from 30.12.1971 with a specific purpose as
explained in the case of Lal Krishna Advani (supra). In the statutory
scheme, this provision appears after Sections 4 and 5 which confer upon
the Commission the power for ensuring compulsory attendance of
examination of witnesses in order to collect evidence for the purposes of
rendering finding on the terms of reference made to it. Section 8B, on
the other hand, imposes an obligation upon the Commission to give a
reasonable opportunity to a person of being heard in the inquiry and to
produce evidence in his defence, if the Commission considers it
necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person, or is of the opinion
that reputation of any person is likely to be prejudicially affected by the
inquiry. This power can be exercised at any stage of the inquiry if the
aforesaid ingredients are made out in the opinion of the Commission. It
is a facet of audi alteram partem rule to ensure that procedural fairness
is observed before any adverse findings are made against such person.
62. Section 8C provides for right to cross-examine any adverse
witness referred to in Section 8B, whose evidence is recorded by the
Commission. It also confers the right to appear through the legal
82
practitioner. The provisions under Sections 4 and 5(2) relate to
inquisitorial power of the Commission for obtaining facts. Section 8B is
the statutory embodiment of the audi alteram partem, if the Report of
the Commission is likely to be stigmatic upon the conduct or reputation
of that person, though it is not legally binding, unlike the adjudicatory
findings rendered by a court. On behalf of the petitioners, reliance has
been placed on the case of K.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy (supra) where the
notices were vague on account of not referring to materials on record of
the Commission, which, if accepted, would prejudicially affect the
reputation of the petitioners. In the said case, notice under Section 8B
was quashed on that ground.
63. It is true that the Rules of 1972, framed under Section 12 of the
Act of 1952 do not prescribe any statutory format for issue of service of
summons. Rule 4 provides for the issue of summons to persons whose
attendance before it may be required to give evidence or to produce
documents and the manner in which the summons is to be served. Rule 5
provides that the Commission may issue a notice to every person who in
its opinion should be given an opportunity of being heard in the enquiry,
to furnish to the Commission a statement relating to such matters as may
83
be specified in the notice. Rule 5(2)(b), on the other hand, provides for
issuance of notification inviting all persons acquainted with the subject
matter of the inquiry to furnish to the Commission a statement relating
to such matters as may be specified in the notification. Under sub-rule
(3) every statement furnished under clause (a) of sub-rule (2) shall be
accompanied by an affidavit in support of the facts set out in the
statement sworn by the person furnishing the statement. Under sub-rule
(4), every such person furnishing a statement under clause (a) of sub-
rule (2) shall also furnish to the Commission along with the statement, a
list of the documents on which he proposes to rely and forward to the
Commission. Under sub-rule (5), the Commission shall examine all
statements furnished to it under clause (b) of sub-rule (2) and if, after
such examination, the Commission considers it necessary to record
evidence, it shall first record the evidence, if any, produced by the
Central Government and may thereafter record evidence in such order as
it may deem fit, of persons who furnished a statement under clause (a)
of sub-rule (2), and whose evidence is considered relevant for the
purpose of inquiry and any other person whose evidence, in the opinion
of the Commission, is relevant to the inquiry. Proviso to sub-rule (5)(a)
provides that the Commission may dispense with the attendance of any
84
person for the purpose of giving evidence for the reasons of hardship or
inconvenience, or any other sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing.
64. In Jai Prakash Associates (supra), it has been held that under
Rule 5(2) notice or summons is issued to elicit information for the
purpose of inquiry, whereas Section 8B applies when the Commission
proposes to inquire into any person’s conduct or the reputation of any
person which is likely to be affected, in which case he must be given a
reasonable opportunity of hearing and to produce evidence in his
defence. In the case of Jai Prakash Associates (supra), the Commission
had issued a general notice and later a notice calling upon the petitioner
to place its stand. The petitioner had sought clarification and time to
respond contending that no specific allegations were disclosed. The
request for adjournment was refused. The Commission proceeded to
submit its Report which was challenged on the ground that the Report
has not complied with the provisions of Sections 8B and 8C of the Act
of 1952 and Rule 5 of the Rules of 1972. The Allahabad High Court
quashed the report as the petitioner was not given reasonable
opportunity of being heard and opportunity to produce evidence in his
defence. It was further held that the report submitted by the Commission
is in violation of the mandatory and statutory requirements.
85
65. In Kiran Bedi (supra), the apex Court opined that if conduct or
reputation of the petitioners was being examined issuance of a notice
under Section 8B of the Act of 1952 is attracted. Paragraphs 17, 20 and
21 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
“17. Consequently, we find it unnecessary to consider in
any further detail, the submissions made by counsel for the parties
on this point. Insofar as point (ii) is concerned, it would be seen
that the use of the word “or” between clauses (a) and (b) of
Section 8-B of the Act makes it clear that Section 8-B would be
attracted if requirement of either clause (a) or clause (b) is
fulfilled. Clause (b) of Section 8-B applies when the conduct of
any person is to be enquired into whereas clause (b) applies to a
case where reputation of a person is likely to be prejudicially
affected. As regards the enquiry about the conduct of Smt Kiran
Bedi and Jinder Singh, even the Committee in its interim report
specifically stated that the conduct of these two petitioners among
others was to be examined. Having once so stated in unequivocal
terms, it was not open to the Committee to still take the stand that
Section 8-B was not attracted insofar as they were concerned.
Recourse to procedure under Section 8-B is not confined to any
particular stage and if not earlier, at any rate, as soon as the
Committee made the aforesaid unequivocal declaration of its
intention in its interim report, it should have issued notice under
Section 8-B to the two petitioners, if it was of the view as it seems
to be, for which view there is apparently no justification, that issue
of a formal notice under Section 8-B was the sine qua non for
attracting that section. At all events, the Committee could not
deny the petitioners the statutory protection of Section 8-B by
merely refraining from issuing a formal notice even though on its
own declared intention the section was clearly attracted.
xxx xxx
20. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations made in the
statements of case and the supporting affidavits filed on behalf of
the various Bar Associations including the Delhi High Court Bar
Association requirement of even clause (b) of Section 8-B was
fulfilled inasmuch as if those allegations were proved they were
likely to prejudicially affect the reputation of the two petitioners.
Indeed, in view of the term of reference which contemplated
taking of “stringent action” against all those responsible, even the
86career of the petitioners as police officers was likely to be affected
in case an adverse finding was recorded against them. In view of
the aforesaid specific term of reference, the principle that the
report of a Commission of Enquiry has no force proprio vigore
does not on a pragmatic approach to the consequences seem to
constitute sufficient safeguard so far as the petitioners are
concerned.
21. The reason for the importance attached with regard to the
matter of safeguarding the reputation of a person being
prejudicially affected in clause (b) of Section 8-B of the Act is not
far to seek.”
66. In Lal Krishna Advani (supra), the apex court also reiterated the
principle that right to reputation is a facet of right to life of a citizen
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. At para 6, it was held as
under:
“6. The High Court, while referring to a decision reported
in State of J&K v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad [AIR 1967 SC 122]
observed that when an authority takes a decision, which may have
civil consequences and affects the right of a person, the principles
of natural justice would at once come into play. Reputation of an
individual is an important part of one’s life. The High Court then
quoted a passage from a decision of this Court reported in Kiran
Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry [(1989) 1 SCC 494 : AIR 1989 SC
714] which passage (SCC p. 515, para 25) contains the
observations from an American decision in D.F. Marion v. Minnie
Davis [55 American LR 171] and reads as follows:
“The right to enjoyment of a private reputation,
unassailed by malicious slander is of ancient origin, and
is necessary to human society. A good reputation is an
element of personal security, and is protected by the
Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of
life, liberty and property.”
Some decisions, to which our attention has been drawn by Shri
Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Respondent 1, may be referred: Board of Trustees of the Port of
Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni [(1983) 1 SCC
124 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 61] wherein it was observed that right to
reputation is a facet of right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of
the Constitution. He has also referred to the International
87
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1965 (ICCPR),
recognizing the right to have opinions and the right of freedom of
expression subject to the right of reputation of others. The
Covenant provides:
“1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without
interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this
right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either
orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any
other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of
this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may
therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be
such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) for respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) for the protection of national security or of public order
(ordre public), or of public health or morals.”
It is thus amply clear that one is entitled to have and preserve one’s
reputation and one also has a right to protect it. In case any
authority, in discharge of its duties fastened upon it under the law,
traverses into the realm of personal reputation adversely affecting
him, it must provide a chance to him to have his say in the matter.
In such circumstances right of an individual to have the safeguard
of the principles of natural justice before being adversely
commented upon by a Commission of Inquiry is statutorily
recognised and violation of the same will have to bear the scrutiny
of judicial review. A reference may be made to Peter Thomas
Mahon v. Air New Zealand Ltd. [1984 AC 808 : (1984) 3 All ER
201 : (1984) 3 WLR 884 (PC)]
67. It flows therefrom that if the right to reputation, which is a facet
of right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
is likely to be affected by the decision of an authority, and it may have
civil consequence, such a person is entitled to mandatory notice under
Section 8B of the Act of 1952 giving a reasonable opportunity of being
heard in the inquiry and to produce evidence in his defence. Therefore, it
was incumbent upon the Commission to disclose the adverse materials
88
whether in the form of oral or documentary evidence, which in the
opinion of the Commission, would affect the conduct of such person or
his reputation prejudicially by its findings. What constitutes the
ingredients of a statutory notice, such as one under Section 8B of the
Act of 1952? In this regard, it is to be observed that though the Rule
does not specifically provide for a statutory format, the allegations or
adverse material and the source from which it has been derived are
required to be referred to and indicated in the notice under Section 8B of
the Act of 1952 to enable such person a reasonable opportunity to
defend himself. Section 8C provides every such person a right to cross-
examine and representation by legal practitioner. This is considered
necessary not only to test the veracity of the statement of witness but
also to impeach the credibility of such a witness.
68. In the statutory scheme of the Act of 1952 and the Rules framed
therein and the legal position rendered by the Supreme Court and the
High Courts referred to above, it is now necessary to examine whether
the findings of the Commission in its Report dated 31.07.2025 were
adverse to the conduct or reputation of the petitioners.
69. A perusal of the findings of the Commission as extracted
hereinabove vis-a-vis each of these petitioners would show that they
89
adversely comment upon the petitioners’ conduct and are definitely
prejudicial to their reputation. It is also evident from the nature of the
summons issued upon them that none of the incriminating material
relied upon by the Commission to record its findings against the
petitioners were referred to or indicated in the summons.
70. A perusal of the summons upon the petitioners, THR and KCR,
would show that they were called upon to be examined and hear them
upon the terms of reference of the Commission on 09.06.2025. The
summons also indicated that the petitioners are at liberty to produce
documents and records upon which they desire to rely upon and place
before the Commission for consideration. These petitioners were
examined as Commission Witnesses Nos.114 and 115 respectively. The
total number of witnesses examined by the Commission was 119. As
such by the time these petitioners were examined, the Commission had
almost examined rest of the witnesses. The Commission also had the
records relating to the cabinet resolutions, reports of the WAPCOS,
National Dam Safety Authority, High Power Committee, State Level
Standing Committee etc. The petitioners upon receipt of the summons
requested for certain documents on 06.06.2025. The said documents
were supplied to them on 09.06.2025, i.e., the date of the appearance of
90
the petitioner, THR before the Commission. The petitioner, THR was
examined on 09.06.2025. The petitioner was put questions regarding the
reason for construction of barrages at Medigadda, Annaram and Sandilla
and also on whether cabinet approvals for construction of these barrages
were taken. The Commission also put questions on the recommendation
of the High Power Committee to shift the location of Annaram and
Sundilla barrages. A perusal of the statement made by the petitioner
indicates that he was examined on various aspects relating to the
approval of the construction of the barrage, recommendations of the
High Power Committee and the Expert Committee etc.
71. The petitioner, KCR was examined on 11.06.2025. The petitioner
was also put a number of questions relating to construction of the
barrages at the three places as above. He was also questioned on other
related aspects of the construction of the three barrages and matters
regarding the Minutes of the Review Meeting; how the KIPCL will pay
off the dues taken from various institutions; whether the Cabinet
approval was there for construction of these barrages etc. However, the
Commission had not referred to any adverse or incriminating materials –
documentary or oral, in its summons to these petitioners, which in the
91
opinion of the Commission were likely to affect the conduct or
reputation of the petitioner.
72. The argument of the respondents-State that the petitioners THR
and KCR were fully cognizant of the documentary evidence in the form
of resolutions of the Cabinet and the reports of various Committees,
which on their request were also supplied to them, amounted to
substantive compliance of the requirement of reasonable opportunity of
being heard and to defend themselves as per Section 8B of the Act does
not merit acceptance. It is settled law that there can be no estoppel
against the statute. The petitioners, THR and KCR were not offered
reasonable opportunity to defend themselves during their examination
on the materials relied upon by the Commission to record its findings
which are impinging upon their conduct and reputation. The mere
supply of the documents on the same day, i.e., 09.06.2025 to the
petitioner, THR would not amount to giving a reasonable opportunity as
contemplated under Section 8B of the Act of 1952 which is inserted
with a specific object and purpose to allow such persons notice of the
adverse materials collected and available with the Commission for being
confronted during the course of their examination. Similarly, the supply
of documents asked for to petitioner, KCR on 09.06.2025 two days
92
before his examination on 11.06.2025 cannot be considered as discharge
of the statutory responsibility upon the Commission to refer to and
provide the incriminating materials on which it wanted to rely and form
opinion on the conduct or reputation of the petitioner as contemplated
under Section 8B of the Act of 1952. It is not in dispute that the
materials sought for and supplied by the Commission to these petitioners
on 09.06.2025 on 11.06.2025 were several and voluminous. Their
examination on such materials either on the same day 09.06.2025 or
11.06.2025 in the respective cases cannot be construed as reasonable
notice for defending themselves on questions put to them in relation to
the decision making process, execution, implementation, operation and
maintenance, awarding of tender of the three barrages. As such, whether
the summons or notices upon these petitioners specifically referred to
Section 8B of the Act of 1952 or not could not be of any significance as
in substance the summons did not conform to the requirement of proper
notice under Section 8B of the Act of 1952, to which the petitioners
were entitled before any findings or comments adverse and prejudicial
to their conduct and reputation could be recorded by the Commission.
The argument to the contrary made on behalf of the respondents-State
does not merit acceptance. The findings of the Commission on lapses
related to Political Executives i.e., petitioners, THR and KCR, the then
93
Irrigation Minister and the then Chief Minister respectively that the
entire project was characterised by rampant and brazen procedural and
financial irregularities adversely comment upon the conduct of the
petitioners and are prejudicial to their reputation. The Commission has
also recorded that the petitioner, KCR is directly and vicariously
accountable for irregularities and illegalities in planning, construction,
completion, operation and maintenance of the three barrages. His
involvement and directions are the cause and result of irregularities and
distress to the three barrages. That the then Chief Minister, i.e., KCR
was pre-determined and bent upon to construct barrage at Medigadda at
his free choice and the authorities associated with the decision making
facilitated them. The Commission had also observed that there was
clinching evidence of an intent to siphon public funds to unduly favour
agencies. These findings are definitely prejudicial to their conduct and
reputation.
73. The requirement of a mandatory notice under Section 8B of the
Act of 1952 is a statutory safeguard introduced in public interest to
prevent loss of reputation, which is a facet of right to life to such
persons. Any inference of waiver of such a right cannot be inferred by
their appearance and examination by the Commission on the dates fixed.
94
Their participation in any other Commission of Inquiry constituted
earlier like the one headed by Justice L.Narasimha Reddy cannot also be
taken as a defence by the respondents-State to sustain the findings of the
Commission against these petitioners. The respondents-State has placed
reliance on the decision of K.L.Tripathi (supra) in support of their
submissions. In K.L.Tripathi (supra), conduct of the appellant as a
Branch Manager of the Bank was being enquired. The appellant was
associated with the preliminary investigation and his versions or
explanations were sought for and recorded. He had participated in the
investigation, gave his explanation, neither disputed any of the facts
questioning the veracity of the witnesses or the entries or the letters or
documents shown to him upon which the charges were framed and upon
which he was found guilty. The observations of the apex court that
where there is no lis regarding the facts but certain explanation of the
circumstances, there is no requirement of cross-examination to be
fulfilled to justify fair play in action and no real prejudice has been
caused to the party aggrieved by the order was rendered in the aforesaid
context. The facts of the present case are distinct as the petitioners were
not associated with the enquiry conducted by the Commission while
recording the statement of other witnesses and collection of
documentary evidence any time before they were asked to appear by the
95
summons dated 06.09.2025. The Commission did not refer to the
incriminating materials in the summons issued to them on which the
Commission sought to rely upon in course of their examination and
while recording its finding against them. The proposition laid down in
the cases of N.Mani (supra) and P.K.Palanisamy (supra) relied on by
the respondents-State that mere non-mentioning or reference to a wrong
provision of law would not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the
source of power can be traced is well settled. However, insertion of
Sections 8B and 8C in the Act of 1952 is a statutory procedural
safeguard with a salutary purpose for protecting any adverse or
prejudicial finding by the Commission on the conduct or reputation of
such person without proper notice to them. The absence of a prescribed
format or non-mentioning of Section 8B in the summons is not an issue.
The absence of the incriminating material or its reference in the
summons issued on the petitioners in substance renders the summons
illusory and failing to comply with the statutory safeguard provided
under Section 8B of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents-State has referred to the decision of R.Rajagopal (supra)
specifically paragraph 26, but the said case deals with the right to
privacy guaranteed under the right to life and liberty to the citizens of
the country under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The decision
96
was rendered in the context of publication of the life story or biography
of one Auto Shankar who was convicted for six murders and sentenced
to death. In this background, the apex court examined the principles of
right to privacy and freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which is subject to
reasonable restrictions. The said decision in inapplicable in the facts of
the present case, where the findings of the Commission have been
assailed on the ground that they are prejudicial to the conduct and
reputation of the petitioners which is a facet of right to life, without
following the statutory safeguard under Section 8B of the Act of 1952.
74. The petitioners, SKJ and SS, who were serving as Indian
Administrative Service officers working as the Chief Secretary and the
Additional Secretary to the Chief Minister respectively during the
decision making and execution of the project, also received a notice to
attend the meeting before the Commission on 15.07.2024. Both the
notices are in the same language and content and have been extracted in
the foregoing paragraphs.
75. Pursuant to the notice, both the petitioners appeared before the
Commission. They were asked to submit an affidavit containing their
statement on affidavit. The petitioner, SKJ submitted the statement on
97
affidavit on 21.07.2024. He had retired in the year 2019. The petitioner,
SS also submitted her statement on affidavit on 01.08.2024. Both the
statements delineate in substance that their role and responsibilities in
their official capacity during the relevant period. Thereafter, no notice or
summons was issued upon them till December, 2024 when they were
telephonically asked to appear before the Commission for examination.
They appeared before the Commission on 18.12.2024 (SKJ) and
19.12.2024 (SS) respectively. Their statements were recorded as
witnesses C.W.92 and C.W.95 respectively.
76. The petitioner, SKJ was asked questions relating to the decision
on construction of barrages at Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla; on the
constitution of the High Power Committee, the scope of the State Level
Standing Committee and whether any administrative approvals covering
the project were taken. He was also asked questions regarding the design
and plan of the project and the cause of the defect found in Medigadda
barrage in Block No.7. The petitioner, SS was also asked questions
regarding the construction of barrages at Medigadda, Annaram and
Sundilla; whether the matter was placed before the cabinet for approval
in respect of the said barrages, her role as Secretary to the Chief
98
Minister and whether any dissenting notes were placed before the Chief
Minister.
77. The Commission evidently did not serve any notice containing
any adverse materials upon these two petitioners as contemplated under
Section 8B of the Act of 1952. The summons issued to the petitioners,
SKJ and SS, dated 08.07.2024 and 12.07.2024 was only to attend the
meeting with the Chairman of the Commission. It can in no way be
treated as summons under Section 8B of the Act of 1952. No summons
in any form was issued thereafter upon these two petitioners. They were
telephonically informed to appear before the Commission for
examination in December, 2024. It can therefore be concluded that no
notice under Section 8B of the Act of 1952 was issued upon these two
petitioners giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard and
defend themselves, against the materials collected during the inquiry by
the Commission. The Commission recorded adverse findings on their
conduct and reputation without giving them any reasonable opportunity
of being heard as required under Section 8B of the Act. The petitioners
have relied upon the case of Canara Bank (supra) on the proposition
that notice must be precise and unambiguous as an approved rule of fair
play in action and the principles of natural justice. The respondents-State
99
has on the other hand contended that all the findings are based upon the
public records produced before the Commission. However, no such
documents were supplied to the petitioners SKJ and SS to defend
themselves during their examination. Evidently, the examination of
these petitioners was not in course of the inquisitorial or investigative
role of the Commission under Section 4 or 5(2) of the Act of 1952 for
collecting evidence. If the Commission had the basis to render findings
prejudicial to the conduct or reputation of these petitioners, it was
obligatory upon it to provide them with the incriminating material,
which it failed to do so. The contention of the respondents-State that the
findings rendered by the Commission are confined to their role as public
servants and do not impinge upon their personal conduct or reputation
does not merit acceptance. The Commission has recorded that petitioner,
SS was not diligent, rather negligent and irresponsible in discharge of
her duties and is also liable for action for violation of the Business Rules
of the Government. Similarly, the Commission has rendered a finding
against the petitioner, SKJ as being liable for intentionally suppressing
the Report of the Expert Committee constituted under G.O.Rt.No.28
with an oblique motive to enable the Government to construct the
project at Medigadda. Therefore, appropriate action should be taken
against him in accordance with law for committing irregularities and
100
violating the Business Rules of Government by not placing the file
relating to G.O.Rt.No.212, dated 13.04.2025 and G.O.Rt.No.40, dated
18.01.2016 before the Cabinet for approval, though G.O.Rt.No.212 was
subsequently ratified by the Cabinet on 03.06.2016. The findings cannot
be construed as innocuous in nature. Such findings of the Commission
prejudicially affect the conduct and reputation of the petitioners. They
were, therefore, entitled to the statutory notice under Section 8B of the
Act introduced to provide safeguard to the personal reputation of such
persons likely to be affected by the findings of the Commission of
Inquiry. The right of reputation has been treated as facet of right to life
as reiterated in the case of Lal Krishna Advani (supra). This Court is,
therefore, of the opinion that the Commission failed to observe the
statutory requirement of service of notice under Section 8B of the Act of
1952 before recording the findings, which are prejudicial to the conduct
and reputation of these petitioners. In these circumstances, following the
ratio rendered by the apex court in the case of Kiran Bedi (supra) and
Lal Krishna Advani (supra) and other decisions referred to
hereinabove, it is held that the findings in the Report of the Commission
dated 31.07.2025 which are prejudicial in nature and adversely affect the
conduct and reputation of these petitioners shall be inoperative and no
action shall be taken on the basis thereof. As observed in the case of Lal
101
Krishna Advani (supra), it may not be necessary for a person to wait
till certain action is initiated by the Government considering the report
of the Inquiry Commission, where the observations made by the
Commission are such which militate against the reputation of a person
and particularly, without giving any chance to such a person to explain
his conduct.
Conclusion:
78. In view of the elaborate discussion made and the reasons
recorded hereinabove, this Court holds:
(i) that the constitution of the Commission of Inquiry under
Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 vide G.O.Ms.No.6,
dated 14.03.2024 is neither arbitrary, illegal nor ultra vires the
Constitution of India and the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952; and
(ii) that the findings rendered by the Commission as are
prejudicial to the conduct and reputation of the petitioners and have been
rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice and the statutory
safeguard provided under Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry
Act, 1952, shall be inoperative and no action can be taken on the basis
thereof.
102
79. The writ petitions are accordingly partly allowed in the manner
indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
22.04.2026
Note: LR Copy be marked
(By order)
Pln
