The Kodangal–Narayanpet–Makthal Lift Irrigation Scheme has become the centre of a political dispute after BRS working president KT Rama Rao accused the Telangana government of manipulating tenders to favour a company owned by Revenue Minister Ponguleti Srinivas Reddy. Rama Rao also questioned the project’s estimated cost, which he said had increased from Rs 1,450 crore in 2014 to Rs 6,825 crore.
In a post on X, Rama Rao alleged that the tendering process initiated by the Congress government was structured to benefit the minister’s company, which had participated in the bidding. He claimed that the other firms in the process were “paper entities” or nominal companies and that the arrangement was designed to leave only one serious bidder in contention.
The allegations relate to a lift irrigation project intended to serve the Kodangal, Narayanpet and Makthal areas. The supplied report does not provide details of the tender notice, the number of bidders, the technical evaluation process or the stage at which the contract was awarded. It also does not include a response from the Telangana government, Minister Ponguleti Srinivas Reddy or the company named in the allegations.
Rama Rao’s principal objection was the reported escalation in the project estimate. According to his statement, the cost has risen from approximately Rs 1,450 crore in 2014 to Rs 6,825 crore, an increase of nearly five times. He alleged that project estimates were being inflated under the cover of construction activity and said the increase raised questions about the use of public funds.
The BRS leader also accused the government of weakening transparency in public contracting by favouring selected companies. He described the alleged process as one in which the same group would benefit regardless of the outcome, and used terms including “crony capitalism”, “daylight robbery” and “kleptocracy” to characterise what he called the misuse of public resources.
The dispute places two separate issues before the public: whether the tender process was conducted transparently and why the project’s estimated cost has increased so sharply. The available report records Rama Rao’s allegations but does not independently verify them or provide documentary evidence from the tendering authority.
The report also does not specify the project’s current implementation timeline, the value of any awarded contract, the reasons cited for the cost revision or the next administrative action. Any assessment of the allegations would therefore depend on the release or examination of the relevant tender documents, cost estimates and official responses.
