Telangana High Court: Petitioner assailed the validity of G.O.Ms.No.9, Energy (Power.II) Department, dated 14-03-2024 issued by the State Government by which a Commission was appointed to conduct an inquiry into the correctness and propriety of the decision taken by the erstwhile Government of Telangana on procurement of power from the Distribution Companies (‘DISCOMS’) of the State of Chhattisgarh and to inquire into correctness and the propriety of the decision taken by the erstwhile State Government of Telangana to establish Bhadradri Thermal Power Station (‘BTPS’) at Manuguru and Yadadri Thermal Power Station (‘YTPS’) at Damaracherla.
The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, CJ., and Anil Kumar Jukanti, J., opined that the allegation of bias against Respondent 3 was solely based on the statement made in the press conference and no other material had been produced to show that the proceeding before Respondent 3 was vitiated on account of personal bias. The Court further opined that the allegation of bias could not be inferred but had to be established and thus, held that petitioner failed to prove the plea of bias against Respondent 3.
Background
Petitioner served the State of Telangana as the Chief Minister for two terms i.e., from June 2014 till 2018 and thereafter from 2018 till 2023. It was submitted that the State was facing an acute power crisis and the public in general suffered on account of the deficit of power supply. Therefore, the erstwhile State Government was required to take immediate medium and long term measures and to build power generating capacity in the State. Therefore, in 2014, it decided to procure 1000 MW of power from the DISCOMS of the State of Chhattisgarh and thus, Power Purchase Agreement (‘PPA’) was signed. The erstwhile State Government also decided to establish BTPS with subcritical technology and YTPS with coal supply.
In 2023, a new Government was formed, which in exercise of the powers under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (‘1952 Act’), constituted a Commission to inquire into irregularities relating to procurement of power from Chhattisgarh by Telangana State DISCOMS and construction of BTPS and YTPS by the erstwhile State Government. The Commission requested petitioner to apprise the Commission regarding the role played by petitioner in the matters mentioned in the Terms of Reference and requested him to visit the office of the Commission and present his oral version.
Petitioner responded to the notice, in which it was mentioned that General Elections for the Lok Sabha were scheduled to be held on 13-05-2024 and the results would be declared on 04-06-2024. It was further stated that petitioner being President of Bharatiya Rashtra Samithi and being the Star Campaigner of the party in the elections, was unable to respond, and therefore, the Commission was requested to extend the time till 30-06-2024. The Commission informed petitioner that the Commission must submit the Report within three months, therefore, petitioner was requested to make his version available either by 31-05-2024 or at the latest by 15-06-2024.
The Commission recorded fifteen witnesses and thereafter held a Press Conference on 11-06-2024. Petitioner requested Respondent 3 to recuse himself from the responsibilities of heading the Commission on the ground that Respondent 3 had a pre-determined opinion, and his views reflect the bias. The Commission, in exercise of powers under Sections 8-B and 8-C of the 1952 Act issued a notice to petitioner, by which he was asked to appear before the Commission within one week after receipt of the notice. Petitioner, thus, filed the present writ petition seeking quashment of G.O.Ms.No.9.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court referred to the 1952 Act and observed that a Commission of Inquiry appointed under the Act was purely a fact-finding body. The Commission was required to collect facts through evidence led before it and, on consideration, thereof, was required to submit its Report, which the appointing authority might or might not accept. The Commission of Inquiry had neither any power to pronounce a binding or definitive judgment nor had the power to enforce its Report.
The issues for consideration before the Court were:
1. Whether the Commission had the jurisdiction to inquire into correctness and propriety of the decision taken by the then Government to procure power from DISCOMS of the State of Chhattisgarh and in establishing BTPS and YTPS, as the issue had already been adjudicated by State Electricity Regulatory Commissions?
The Court noted that PPA was entered into on 22-09-2015 between Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited and Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited and Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited. The Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘TSERC’) after holding the public hearing, passed order on 31-03-2017, by which tariff was determined at the rate of Rs. 3.90 per KWH. The said Commission further directed that the Telangana DISCOMS should get the tariff fixed by the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘CSERC’). The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide order dated 07-07-2018 determined the project cost for arriving at tariff.
The Court opined that it was evident that the issue regarding project cost and fixation of tariff was adjudicated by TSERC and CSERC. The Court also opined that the Terms of Reference were far more wider than the issues adjudicated by the State Regulatory Commissions regarding fixation of tariff and did not include the issues adjudicated by the Commissions. Thus, the Court did not accept the contention that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues which had been decided by the quasi-judicial bodies, i.e., TSERC and CSERC.
2. Whether the proceeding before the Commission suffered from bias as Respondent 3 in a Press Conference had pre-judged the issues pending before the Commission of Inquiry?
The Court opined that to decide whether a proceeding might be vitiated by bias or not, the test always was whether there was reasonable ground for believing that decision maker was likely to be biased.
The Court noted that Respondent 3 had sent a notice dated 14-04-2024 to petitioner to visit the office and present his oral version, thereafter which petitioner requested for extension of time on the ground that elections to the Parliament were due and sought time till the end of June 2024. Respondent 3 thereupon by a communication dated 04-05-2024 informed petitioner to consider the feasibility of making his version, in relation to the Terms of Reference by 31-05-2024 or latest by 15-06-2024. Thereafter, Respondent 3 held a Press Conference on 11-06-2024.
The Court opined that the press conference was held to update the media about the status of the proceedings before the Commission and the extract of the press conference did not contain any material indicating that Respondent 3 pre-judged the issues pending before him and the Commission was required to record the findings based on material produced before it.
The Court noted that Respondent 3 held the Constitutional Office of the Chief Justice and had worked as a constitutional functionary. The Court opined that the allegation of bias against Respondent 3 was solely based on the statement made in the press conference and no other material had been produced to show that the proceeding before Respondent 3 was vitiated on account of personal bias.
The Court opined that the allegation of bias could not be inferred but had to be established and thus, held that petitioner failed to prove the plea of bias against Respondent 3. Therefore, the proceeding before Respondent 3 was not vitiated on the ground of bias.
The Court did not accept the contention that the order dated 14-03-2024 was issued in violation of the 1952 Act and that the Notice issued under Section 8-B of the 1952 Act was in violation of Section 8-B of 1952 Act as in the said Notice, the Court noted that it had been stated that from a perusal of relevant files prima facie, it appeared that petitioner had participated in the decision making.
Thus, the writ petition was dismissed in limine.
[Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao v. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine TS 1480, Order dated 01-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Dr. Aditya Sondhi, Senior Counsel appears for S. Santosh Kumar, Counsel
For the Respondent: A. Sudershan Reddy, Advocate General
