The said petitioners sought directions to CBI to investigate into the breaches alleged regarding the usage of allocated funds during the construction of the project.
Published Date – 2 April 2024, 11:00 PM
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Tuesday remarked that public interest litigations filed seeking a CBI investigation into the Kaleshwaram Project were more of political interest litigations.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar was dealing with PIL cases filed by K.A Paul, Prof. M. Kodanda Rama Reddy, B. Ram Mohan Reddy, Mudhuganti Vishwanath Reddy, B Jadson and others challenging the alleged breaches committed during construction of the Kaleshwaram project.
The said petitioners sought directions to CBI to investigate into the breaches alleged regarding the usage of allocated funds during the construction of the project.
“These cases are more of a publicity stunt and not matters of public interest, the court remarked. Once a PIL is filed and admitted, the role of the petitioners is limited as the court can proceed with the issue. We can appoint amicus curie to deal with the issue instead of taking assistance from the petitioners,” the bench observed.
Pointing out at the way in which PILs were filed by the petitioners, the bench expressed dissatisfaction. The bench wondered why the cases were filed recently when the Kaleshwaram Project had commenced in 2016.
One of the counsels responded that due to technical issues, the PIL filed much before the elections was numbered now. The bench said it could not decide the matter immediately without hearing the other side and directed Additional AG Imran Khan to submit their response on behalf of the State government.
KA Paul of Praja Shanthi party, who appeared as party in person was directed by the bench to follow the court directions.
However, when Paul said he had obtained crucial information on the Kaleshwaram project for the last two years, the bench asked whether he was aware of the PIL Rules on the source of information and handed him over a copy of the rules.
The bench asked if he would comply with the Rules or proceed with his submissions without adhering to the Rules.
The bench questioned if the petitioners had made any real effort for finding out the information and facts on the issue and wondered if they have filed the PILs only for political mileage in the ensuing elections.
It said courts have procedures that ought to be followed and that it should not be used a platform for political benefits. It questioned the petitioners about their source of information for raising allegations of corruption.
The bench expressed serious dissatisfaction at the petitioners for their hurried manner in which resolution to the issue was sought and suggested the petitioners to file PIls in accordance with the PIL Rules.
It also wanted to know if the petitioners have approached appropriate authorities against the alleged illegalities.
Stating that the court has to hear both sides before adjudicating a matter, the bench adjourned the case to April 8 for the response of the government.
