Commission of Inquiry on Kaleshwaram Project in Telangana grills ex-ENC, raps him for sharing misleading information

Justice P.C. Ghose Commission expresses dissatisfaction over misleading responses in Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project inquiry.

HYDERABAD

The Justice P.C. Ghose Commission of Inquiry going into the alleged irregularities in the planning, execution, operation and maintenance of the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project (KLIP) components, particularly Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla barrages which make head works, has expressed serious dissatisfaction over the attempt to mislead the Commission by former engineer-in-chief of the project N. Venkateshwarlu.

Mr. Venkateshwarlu was examined by the Commission here on Saturday and was told to appear before it again for further examination, whenever called for. It is learnt that the Commission had expressed anger at the former ENC for his response on the use of secant piles in the Medigadda Barrage foundation instead of sheet piles as designed earlier.

Asked as to who had instructed or taken the decision for the use of secant piles for the barrage, Mr. Venkateshwarlu was understood to have told the Commission that they were used as per the recommendation of the Chief Engineer of the Central Designs Organisation (CDO) in the Irrigation department. Angered by the response, Justice Ghose was said to have asked how the CDO could make recommendations when it was mandated only to give the designs and drawings along with cross-sections.

The Commission was said to have asked Mr. Venkateshwarlu whether it should believe in erratic and misleading responses and suggested the former keep the confusion with himself (ENC), if he has any, and not to repeat any attempt to mislead the Commission. Justice Ghose was said to have told Mr. Venkateshwarlu that it has plans and designs given by the CDO and the ENC could not mislead the Commission.

Further, Justice Ghose was said to have cautioned Mr. Venkateshwarlu that the Commission would not tolerate any attempt to submit false proof to it on the project works. The Commission turned down the former ENC’s request to check the information he has one more time and rectify his response if it is wrong. He was examined based on the affidavit submitted to the Commission earlier.

However, the Commission told him that he would be allowed to change/revise his response, provided he came up with proper documentary evidence in support of it. The Commission was said to have remarked as to how he had discharged his responsibilities efficiently as the ENC of the Kaleshwaram project when Mr. Venkateshwarlu told the Commission that he was not excessively familiar with English language.