Hyderabad: The Kaleshwaram project was characterised by “rampant and brazen procedural and financial irregularities”, the Justice P.C. Ghose commission of inquiry is learnt to have concluded in its report. The commission is learnt to have indicated that such unabashed level of laws being ignored, or rules violated, were likely a result of “sole decision taking” by then-Chief Minister K. Chandrashekar Rao, starting with him picking locations for the Medigadda, Annaram and Sundilla barrages.The report, slated for discussion by the Cabinet on Monday, is learnt to have made it clear that there was no formal “decision of the government” on choosing locations for the barrages. The commission is learnt to have pinned significant responsibility on Chandrashekar Rao for direct involvement and disregard for established procedures and public expenditure. The “rampant and brazen procedural and financial irregularities” were such that the commission was learnt to have recommended recovery of Rs.677.77 lakh from officials responsible for the payment of this amount to Wapcos Limited for its report. Noting that the report from Wapcos (earlier Water and Power Consultancy Services (India) Limited) was “brushed aside”, the commission said the money paid for the report must be recovered from those who approved the payment. On the worst-hit Medigadda barrage, which suffered most damage among the three, the commission is learnt to have explicitly made it clear that “the project authorities and the agency (L&T, the company given the contract to build the barrage) are hand in glove with each other and acted with concerted malicious intention in pursuit of their unfair and ulterior motive to unduly benefit out of, and make unlawful gain from, the huge amount of public money expended on the construction of Medigadda barrage.” The report is further learnt to have found that approvals for the barrages were never taken before the Cabinet, and raised intriguing question on the project cost being arrived at even before the final detailed project report was readied by Wapcos, with Chandrashekar Rao having been found to have written a letter to the Prime Minister on 11.2.2016 stating that the Kaleshwaram project cost was Rs.71,436 crore. The project, initially conceived at Rs.38,500 crore as the Pranahita-Chevella Srujala Sravanthi, was ‘redesigned’ by the BRS government and the cost escalated to Rs.71,436 crore as per CM’s letter in 2016. It later saw revised administrative approvals totalling more than Rs.1,10,248.48 crore by March 2022, the report said. The Justice Ghose report also is learnt to have found that the then government justified revised administrative approvals citing alleged “variations” due to shifted locations of the Annaram and Sundilla barrages, and their parameters with a “malicious intention to unduly favour the agencies (Navayuga which built the Sundilla barrage, and Afcons which built the one at Annaram)” and “wrongfully siphoning the amounts from public exchequer.” The commission is learnt to have zeroed in on what may have caused the severe distress at the barrages, pointing out that this was likely caused by the continuous impounding of water to their full levels, which was a directive from Chandrashekar Rao though barrages were typically used for water diversion and not as storage structures. Since there was continuous storage of water, there was “absolutely no operation and maintenance of whatsoever nature, including periodical checks/inspections, pre and post monsoon inspections and reports, etc., of these three barrages at any time.” Important Points:Barrage of errors The Justice P.C. Ghose commission report says: Locating barrages at Medigadda, Annaram, Sundilla ‘sole and individual decision of the minister (irrigation) and the chief minister’. No formal ‘decision of the government’ in this regard. Expert committee report that rejected barrage at Medigadda due to ‘prohibitive cost and time consumption’. Report was ‘intentionally… not considered’ and ‘kept in cold storage’ by the then CM and irrigation minister. Barrages designed on ‘permeable foundations’ were ‘utilised as storage structures’ which is against standard practice. Crucial studies like ‘back water studies, tail water rating curves, and geophysical investigations were not done’ at the shifted Annaram and Sundilla locations; Quality control aspects inadequate on the secant piles, the most important component of the barrage structures, and verticality checks were marked ‘yes’ without any measurements.
Source link
