The Telangana High Court on Wednesday asked former chief secretary and retired bureaucrat Shailendra Kumar Joshi to explain the source of the P C Ghose Commission of Inquiry report that he submitted before the court.
At the same time, the division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin asked the state counsel to explain if the same report or its summary was still available online, in violation of the earlier ruling of the high court.
The division bench was dealing with a writ petition filed by Joshi seeking to quash the report by the PC Ghose Commission of Inquiry, which was set up to probe alleged irregularities in the construction and execution of the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Scheme (KLIS).
The division bench had on Monday granted interim protection to former chief minister K Chandrashekar Rao and former irrigation minister T Harish Rao from any adverse action from the government on the basis of the report. The state government, which tabled the report before the Assembly on Sunday, had referred the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Joshi had also worked as the principal secretary, govt (irrigation and command area), in the Bharat Rashtra Samithi government.
On Wednesday, the counsel appearing for Joshi sought relief, requesting to stay all further proceedings against him and all adverse findings recorded against him in the report. The petitioner’s counsel informed the court that Joshi was summoned by the Ghose Commission, no notice was issued to him under sections 8B and 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, and he was asked to appear for the second time over a phone call.
His counsel noted that spontaneous replies he gave during his appearance were marked as evidence. The counsel also contended that he was not given a chance to cross-examine specific allegations made against him by the Commission.
Story continues below this ad
On being repeatedly asked by the Chief Justice how the petitioner received the report tabled in the Assembly, the counsel said it was made available to them on August 30 and did not explain how. The Chief Justice asked if the report is available on the internet, as it is in violation of the court’s earlier orders.
The petitioner’s counsel said the petitioner was surprised to see his name in the report as someone accused of wrongdoing only after receipt of the report on August 30.
The Chief Justice asked the petitioner’s counsel to file a comprehensive affidavit and seek instructions from the state if the report is available in the public domain. The matter has been posted for hearing next Wednesday.
