Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Telangana High Court today (July 1, 2024) dismissed a writ petition filed by former Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao (KCR), seeking to halt proceedings of the Justice L. Narasimha Reddy Commission. The Commission, formed by the Congress government to investigate Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) made by the previous Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) administration with Chhattisgarh, faced challenge from the BRS president.

A division bench comprising the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti delivered the verdict on the petition filed by KCR on June 25, following the court's reservation of orders on June 28, as reported by The Hindu.

KCR, who served as Chief Minister for two terms from 2014 to 2023, argued in his petition that the Commission's establishment violated provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act-1952 and the Electricity Act-2003. He also noted his request for the former High Court judge leading the Commission to recuse himself.

The Commission's scope includes probing into the power purchase agreements with Chhattisgarh and the construction of Bhadradri and Yadadri Thermal Power Plants during the BRS government's tenure.

KCR sought a stay on the March 14 Government Order forming the Commission, citing bias concerns against the Commission chairman who allegedly pre-judged the matter before hearing all sides. It was contended that “There was no neutrality; predetermine opinion, indicative of biased view. As if you are delivering a judgment before conducting the inquiry. I ought to be targeted as the prior Chief Minister.”

KCR’s counsel, Aditya Sondhi, contended that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate matters already decided by quasi-judicial bodies like state electricity regulatory commissions. He highlighted procedural issues, including insufficient time to respond to notices before the Commission's premature public statements.

Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy countered that KCR's petition lacked merit, asserting it was misconceived and should be dismissed early in the judicial process. He defended the Commission's impartiality despite objections raised arguing “there is an imaginary bias.”

 

Cause Title: Sri. Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao v State of TS