Mathew Kuzhalnadan, a Congress MLA, on  Thursday filed a complaint with the Director of Vigilance seeking an investigation against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan nd his daughter Veena in the  ‘Masappady’(monthly pay-off ) controversy.

Kuzhalnadan, who is in the forefront of attacking Pinarayi Vijayan over the monthly pay-off  allegations against  his daughter Veena, met Vigilance Director TK Vinod Kumar and filed a complaint in this regard.

In his complaint,  Kuzhalnadan  demanded that a case be registered against the father-daughter duo and a probe carried out in the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Speaking media persons after filing the complaint with the Vigilance Director, Kuzhalnadan said he would prove that the acronym “PV” mentioned in the diary of the finance officer of the CMRL, is indeed that of Pinarayi Vijayan.

In a significant move, Kuzhalnadan also handed over evidence against the chief minister and his daughter along with his complaint demanding an investigation in the case.

He said he had started the second round of his fight against the chief minister and his daughter.

“My legal battle against them (Kerala CM and his daughter) has also been started. I raised allegations against them not to create a cloud of smoke. Despite repeated questions posed against them they have not yet bothered to reply,” he said.

The New Delhi bench of the Income Tax Interim Settlement Board (ITISB) has found that  Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s daughter T Veena  received Rs 1.72 crore from Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) for consultancy services that were never provided.

Reports said that Veena and her firm, Exalogic Solutions, had entered into an agreement with the  private  company to provide IT, marketing consultancy, and software services to the latter. However, no services were provided, as the income tax investigation found.

The company told the Income Tax Department that the money was, however, paid in monthly instalments as per the contract. The Income Tax Disputes Redressal Board  found that nexus with prominent person was behind the transaction.