The Telangana High Court dismissed KCR’s plea against an inquiry into power procurement irregularities from Chhattisgarh during his previous tenure. This decision is pivotal in addressing controversies over power procurement and thermal power station setups in the state.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court has dismissed the plea of former Chief Minister K Chandrashekhar Rao (KCR) challenging an inquiry by a commission into alleged irregularities in power procurement from Chhattisgarh by the previous Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) led State regime. This decision marks a critical step in addressing the controversies surrounding power procurement and thermal power station setups in Telangana.
The commission in question, headed by Justice (retired) L Narasimha Reddy, was appointed to investigate the alleged discrepancies in the procurement process. Additionally, the commission was tasked with evaluating the appropriateness of establishing two thermal power stations in the state: the Bhadradri Thermal Power Station (BTPS) at Manuguru and the Yadadri Thermal Power Station (YTPS) at Damaracherla.
KCR’s challenge against the commission’s validity rested on two primary arguments. Firstly, he argued that the commission lacked the necessary jurisdiction since the matter had already been adjudicated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERC) of both Chhattisgarh and Telangana. He emphasized that the SERCs, being quasi-judicial bodies, had already resolved the issues, making further inquiry by the commission redundant.
Secondly, KCR alleged that the commission was inherently biased. He claimed that Justice Narasimha Reddy had already formed a prejudiced view on the matter before KCR could even file his reply. This, according to KCR, compromised the fairness and objectivity expected from the commission.
However, the High Court, in a detailed ruling passed on July 1, refuted these arguments. The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti, upheld the commission’s validity and jurisdiction. The court stated that the scope of the commission’s ‘Terms of Reference’ was broader than the issues previously adjudicated by the SERCs.
In their ruling, the judges clarified-
“Therefore, the argument that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate issues previously decided by the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission and the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, which are quasi-judicial bodies, is without merit.”
ALSO READ: Telangana HC Adjourns Hearing on K Chandrashekar Rao’s Petition Against Narasimha Reddy Commission
The court’s decision to uphold the commission’s jurisdiction underscores the necessity of a comprehensive investigation into the alleged irregularities. By affirming the commission’s mandate, the court has ensured that all aspects of the power procurement process and the establishment of the thermal power stations will be scrutinized in detail.
This ruling is a significant development in the ongoing efforts to ensure transparency and accountability in the state’s power sector. The commission’s inquiry is expected to shed light on the procurement processes and the decisions behind setting up the BTPS and YTPS. The outcome of this inquiry could have far-reaching implications for the former BRS regime and its officials.
The court has rejected K. Chandrashekar Rao’s (KCR) allegations of bias against the head of the inquiry commission, Retired Justice Narasimha Reddy. KCR, the Chief Minister of Telangana, had pointed to certain statements made by Justice Reddy during a press conference as evidence of prejudice.
The court meticulously reviewed an extract from the press conference held on June 11. After thorough examination, it concluded that KCR had failed to demonstrate any bias on the part of Justice Reddy.
“It is clear that the conference aimed to inform the media about the current status of the proceedings before the Commission. The relevant excerpt does not provide any indication that respondent No.3 (Retired Justice Narasimha Reddy) has pre-judged the issues still pending.”
– the court stated unequivocally.
This clarification by the court underscored that the statements made by Justice Reddy were merely informative, aimed at updating the media on the ongoing proceedings, and did not reflect any preconceptions about the issues under investigation.
Moreover, the court elaborated on the nature of the commission itself, established under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. It reiterated that such commissions are strictly fact-finding bodies without the power to issue binding judgments. Their primary function is to investigate matters of public interest and provide a detailed report to the appointing authority, which retains the discretion to act on the commission’s recommendations or not.
“Commissions of inquiry are established to investigate significant public matters, but their findings are not legally binding.”
-the court emphasized.
This statement clarifies the limited scope and authority of the inquiry commission, reinforcing that its role is confined to gathering facts rather than making enforceable decisions.
ALSO READ: Telangana High Court: Responds to Alleged Rs. 25,000-Crore ‘Land Scam’ Petition
The court further highlighted that the commission’s mandate is to compile information and submit its findings to the appointing authority, which then decides the course of action. This procedural explanation served to dismantle any claims of inherent bias or overreach by the commission.
- The legal representation in the case was notable, with Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi and Advocate S. Santosh Kumar representing KCR
- Advocate General A. Sudershan Reddy represented the State of Telangana.
