Telangana HC Dismisses KCR's Plea Challenging Constitution Of Inquiry Commission To Probe Irregularities Of Power Procurement From DISCOMs

This commission was tasked with investigating alleged irregularities in the procurement of power from Chhattisgarh during the previous Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) regime, as well as the establishment of two thermal power stations in the state, namely Bhadradri Thermal Power Station (BTPS) and Yadadri Thermal Power Station (YTPS).

KCR raised two primary objections against the commission. Firstly, he argued that the commission lacked jurisdiction since similar issues had already been adjudicated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs) of both Telangana and Chhattisgarh. Secondly, he alleged bias on the part of Justice Narasimha Reddy, claiming that the chairman had prejudged the matter before KCR could present his response.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti upheld the validity of the commission. The Court determined that the commission's Terms of Reference were broader than those considered by the SERCs, allowing it jurisdiction to conduct its inquiry. The Court added, “Therefore, the contention that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues which have been decided by the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission and the Chattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, which are quasi judicial bodies, does not deserve acceptance. Accordingly, the first issue is answered in the affirmative by stating that the Commission has jurisdiction to enquire into the Terms of Reference.”

Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate General A Sudershan Reddy appeared for the Respondent.

Regarding the allegation of bias, which stemmed from certain statements made by Justice Narasimha Reddy during a press conference, the Court reviewed the relevant excerpts and found no evidence to support KCR's claim. The Court noted, “it is evident that the conference was held to update the Media about the status of the proceeding before the Commission. The statement that “power plant is not in existence, it is under construction” is based on record. The relevant extract does not contain any material so as to indicate that the respondent No.3 has pre-judged the issues pending before him. The Commission is required to record the findings on the basis of material produced before it. We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the respondent No.3 held the Constitutional Office of the Chief Justice and has worked as constitutional functionary”

Additionally, the High Court clarified that the commission, established under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, was purely a fact-finding body. It emphasized that commissions of inquiry do not issue binding judgments but rather collect information and submit reports to the appointing authority, which may choose whether or not to act on their recommendations.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed KCR's petition, affirming the validity of the commission and finding no merit in the objections raised by the former Chief Minister.

Cause Title: Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao v. State of TS

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi and Advocate S Santosh Kumar