The Kerala High Court on Friday suo moto impleaded and issued a notice to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T Veena, and UDF leaders, including Ramesh Chennithala, P K Kunhalikutty, and V K Ibrahim Kunju, along with Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and others, on a petition challenging an order of the Muvattupuzha Vigilance Special Court dismissing a plea for an investigation into the alleged illegal financial transactions between CMRL and the political leaders.
A single bench of Justice K Babu ordered impleading of the political leaders and issued them notice when the petition originally filed by late social activist Gireesh Babu of Kalamassery came up for hearing.
The court observed that if the notice is not issued to parties who are arrayed as accused, then it would go against the recent decision of the Supreme Court.
The court had earlier appointed Advocate Akhil Vijay amicus curiae to argue for and on behalf of the petitioner – social activist Gireesh Babu of Kalamassery, who had died during pendency of the case.
The Vigilance court, while dismissing the plea, had observed that the complainant had not furnished any prima facie material which will show that the political leaders made favours to the CMRL in their capacity as public servants in return for the alleged payments. The Vigilance court had also noted that the order of the Interim Board for Settlement under the Income Tax Act dated June 12, 2023 “does not show a prima facie case of commission of any offences” punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The petitioner, Gireesh babu, had sought a directive to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register an FIR and conduct a probe into his complaint lodged with the VACB.
Girish Babu in his complaint, has demanded to conduct an investigation against Chief Minister’s daughter Veena and Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on the payment given to Veena Vijayan by the CMRL.The petitioner has also demanded the VACB to examine whether the payment was given to Veena considering her relationship with the chief minister.
Girish Babu has also demanded a probe against the political leaders who allegedly received money from the CMRL. It has been reported that the names of political leaders, including Pinarayi Vijayan, former Opposition leader Ramesh Chennithala, Muslim league leader PK Kunhalikkutty, former chief minister Oommen Chandy and former minister Ebrahimkunju figured in the diary jottings seized by the Income tax department from the CMRL.
The amicus curiae appointed by the high court had earlier submitted that there was sufficient prima facie material in the complaint for ordering a preliminary investigation into the allegation of financial transactions. Considering the materials produced along with the complaint, the Vigilance court should have ordered a preliminary inquiry into the allegations to ascertain their veracity.
The amicus curiae pointed out that the reasoning that there were only vague allegations and no material to substantiate the same is incorrect as the court has not considered the order of the Interim Settlement Board, New Delhi wherein many admissions were made by the officers of the company that would disclose offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The amicus curiae pointed out that the company’s officers deposed before the Interim Board stated that the payments were made to the members of political parties for the smooth functioning of their business.
The state government had argued that there was no sufficient material to probe into the complaint.
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.
It has been reported 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.