HC Project under cloud

metro india news  I hyderabad

Allegations of irregularities, inflated estimates and quality compromise have surfaced in the construction of Telangana’s new High Court building complex and judges’ residential enclave at Rajendranagar in Rangareddy district. Questions are now being raised over alleged manipulation of soil test reports and attempts to increase project costs by nearly Rs 200 crore through foundation and cellar works.

The Telangana government approved the prestigious project in December 2024 with an estimated administrative sanction of Rs 2,583 crore. Nearly 100 acres of land adjoining the Agricultural University at Rajendranagar were allotted for the judicial infrastructure project.

The main construction package, including the High Court building, judges’ residences, facilities for lawyers and litigants, and supporting infrastructure, was tendered at an Estimated Contract Value (ECV) of Rs 1,443.73 crore. DEC Infrastructure and Projects (India) Pvt Ltd secured the contract after quoting 4.95 percent above the estimate, taking the project value to around Rs 1,515 crore. Another Rs 603 crore was allocated for furniture, interiors and other infrastructure requirements.

he total construction area is around 36.52 lakh square feet. The project includes three zonal administrative blocks, three advocates’ blocks, public utility facilities, public and advocate parking areas and Bar Council infrastructure. The main court building alone will house 51 court halls spread across 6.52 lakh square feet. The project also includes the Chief Justice’s residence, secretariat facilities, 41 judges’ bungalows, a clubhouse, auditorium, central record room and judges’ parking spaces.

However, allegations are now emerging that corruption may have started at the very foundation stage of the project. Sources claim that although the contract was finalised at Rs 1,515 crore, technical reasons were later introduced to inflate costs by nearly Rs 200 crore.

The controversy centres around the Soil Bearing Capacity (SBC) of the land. While surrounding areas reportedly have a soil bearing capacity of nearly 115 tonnes per square metre, the High Court site was allegedly shown as having only 40 to 70 tonnes per square metre. Officials are alleged to have altered records and modified reports from a private laboratory to justify the lower soil strength assessment.

Based on this reduced SBC, additional works such as deeper excavation, wider foundations, extra concrete work, steel piles, waterproofing and stronger underground support systems were allegedly proposed. Since the project includes G+6 structures along with cellar parking facilities, the argument was made that additional reinforcement and stronger foundations were necessary.

Sources claim that these modifications increased cellar-related expenditure by nearly 280 percent and pushed the overall project estimate up by approximately Rs 200 crore.

Concerns are also being raised about the quality of work at the construction site. It is alleged that while additional works were introduced in the name of structural safety, actual execution lacked proper standards. Sources claim that the contractor did not use sufficient steel reinforcement in foundation and base structures and that reinforced cement concrete (RCC) works were allegedly carried out without adequate steel support in some sections.

Officials monitoring the works reportedly observed that several activities were not being carried out according to approved structural drawings and technical specifications. Improper shuttering plates allegedly caused swelling and cracks after concrete pouring. Since many of these works remain underground, concerns are being expressed that defects may become difficult to identify in future.

The engineering consultancy firm Team One India Pvt Ltd was appointed to oversee designs, technical approvals, drawings and quality supervision. However, the consultant reportedly raised objections regarding the contractor’s functioning and lack of cooperation during execution.

In a letter dated December 17, 2025, addressed to the High Court Building Committee, the consultant reportedly highlighted nearly ten major concerns related to the project. The consultant specifically questioned why the soil bearing capacity at the project site was shown at only 40 to 70 tonnes per square metre when nearby locations reportedly recorded nearly 115 tonnes per square metre.

The consultant warned that the revised assessment could place an unnecessary financial burden on the state government and recommended conducting a proper Plate Load Test to determine the actual soil strength.

The letter also highlighted manpower concerns. While the contractor claimed that nearly 160 technical personnel were deployed at the site, the consultant allegedly found only around 20 to 30 staff members working there. Similarly, although the contractor claimed around 700 labourers were engaged, only about 150 to 200 workers were reportedly present at the site. The consultant warned that such shortages could directly affect construction quality.

The consultant further pointed to structural design deviations and objected to provisions allegedly introduced for constructing two additional floors in the future despite there being no immediate requirement. The firm maintained that approved drawings and designs had already undergone detailed scrutiny, including IIT-level technical examination.

The consultant also recommended construction of a 3.4-kilometre compound wall around the 100-acre campus and suggested adopting a “minimum cut and fill” method for land levelling to reduce earthwork expenses. Other recommendations included improved drainage systems, floodwater management, fire safety infrastructure, parking facilities for nearly 2,800 vehicles and proper planning for staff quarters. Sources indicate that the consultant’s observations triggered discussions within the Roads and Buildings Department. However, officials are believed to have remained silent allegedly due to pressure from influential quarters within the government. There are also allegations that attempts were made to remove the consultant after objections were raised over rising costs and quality concerns.

Against this backdrop, the consultant’s detailed letter to the High Court Building Committee is being viewed as an attempt to officially place the alleged irregularities, technical deviations and cost escalations on record.

So far, no official action has reportedly been initiated regarding the issues raised in the letter, even as the allegations surrounding the construction of a project meant to symbolise justice continue to trigger debate in official and public circles.

Cracks in the foundation

■   Soil Report Manipulation: Authorities allegedly falsified soil strength data to justify deeper foundations and extra reinforcement, unnecessarily inflating the project cost by nearly Rs 200 crore.

■   Structural Quality Lapses: Serious concerns have been raised regarding structural safety due to the use of insufficient steel reinforcement and improper shuttering that caused visible cracking in the concrete.

■   Inflated Resource Claims: A site audit revealed a massive discrepancy in labor, finding only about 20% of the technical staff and workers present compared to what the contractor officially claimed.

■   Suppression of Oversight: Despite the project consultant flagging ten major technical and financial irregularities, government officials allegedly remained silent or attempted to remove the firm 

under external pressure.