Telangana HC Reserves Orders On Admission Of Ex-CM K. Chandrashekhar Rao's Plea Challenging One-Man Commission Probe Into Irregularities In Power Procurement

The Telangana High Court has reserved orders on the admission of a plea filed by the Ex-Chief Minister K. Chandrashekar Rao challenging the one-man committee appointed by the State to look into alleged irregularities that occurred while procuring power from the State of Chhattisgarh.

The matter was listed for orders before the Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti.

Yesterday, Senior Advocate Dr. Aditya Sondhi appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the constituting One Man Commission was ultra vires the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.

He stated that a Commission is merely an advisory body that conducts an enquiry and can, in no way, be vested with the duty of fixing responsibility.

However, as per the agenda of the Commission, it was vested with the responsibility of fixing liability and called a commission set up for conducting ' judicial inquiry.'

“The only role of the commission is to inquire and not adjudicate. It cannot have a penal effect,” he argued. The senior counsel further went on to argue that the retired judge was biased and should not conduct the inquiry.

It was contended that, upon being appointed to conduct the inquiry, the retired judge, without even allowing the petitioner to present his cases, conducted a press conference, and expressed views, which created bias against the petition. All details of commission findings were released and the extent of financial loss was emphasized.

“There was no neutrality; predetermine opinion, indicative of the biased view. As if you are delivering a judgment before conducting the inquiry. I ought to be targeted as the prior Chief Minister,” he argued.

It was also brought to the notice of the Court that a Section 8b notice under the 1952 Act was issued on the petitioner, which permits him to put forth a grievance regarding prejudice. But the same had no meaning once a bias had already been formed and relied on K.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy v. Government of Andhra, upheld by the Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh, in furtherance of his argument.

The senior counsel concluded his arguments by ushering in the urgency as the report was to be filed by the 30th of this month.

The Court had adjourned the matter to today for arguments of the State.

Today, the Senior Counsel and Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State relying on the Ghanshyam Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh case pointed out that it would not help the case of the petitioner as the Commission was not set aside in that case.

Reading out the contents of the press conference he vehemently contended that there was no element of bias. "There is an imaginary bais" he stated.

Relying on the judgements cited by the petitioner, the Advocate General argued that the issuance of a notice under 8B was not redundant. "The Commission should not be set aside, a fresh notice should be issued and material should be submitted to back the claim," he said.

It was also contended that unconfirmed news reports should not form the basis for question. Relying on the K. Vijay Bhaskar Reddy case, it was argued that material to prove bias must be 'cogent, uncontroverted and undisputed.' It was prayed that the Court apply strict standards while testing for personal bias.

After hearing both sides, before reserving the case for orders on admission, the court opined orally that whatever the outcome of the Commission, it would be subject to judicial review.

Case title: Sri. Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao vs. State of TS.

Counsel for petitioner: Senior Counsel Aditya Sondhi

Counsel for State: The Advocate General