The plea was moved challenging a vigilance court order declining to probe the financial transactions of the CM's daughter and her firm.
Published Nov 01, 2023 | 2:04 PM ⚊ Updated Nov 01, 2023 | 2:04 PM
Kerala High Court. (Creative Commons)
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday, 1 November, appointed an amicus curiae to assist it during the hearing of a plea seeking a vigilance probe into the financial transactions of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s daughter Veena T and her firm with a private company.
Justice K Babu appointed advocate Akhil Mohan as the amicus curiae and listed the matter for hearing on Thursday, 2 November, a senior government lawyer associated with the case told PTI.
Advocate BA Aloor, who represents the petitioner, also confirmed the development.
The plea was moved by social activist Gireesh Babu challenging a vigilance court order declining to probe the financial transactions of the chief minister’s daughter and her firm with the Kochi-based company — Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL).
Babu, who has fought several high-profile corruption cases in courts against political leaders and top bureaucrats, died at his residence in Kalamassery in September this year.
A controversy erupted in Kerala recently over financial transactions between the Kochi-based private company and Veena and her IT firm.
Evidence also showed that the company had dealings with top leaders of both the ruling CPI(M) as well as the Opposition Congress-led UDF.
The issue came to the fore when the Malayalam daily, Malayala Manorama, reported that Vijayan’s daughter Veena had allegedly received ₹1.72 crore from CMRL in monthly instalments over the past three years.
The news report, citing a ruling of an Interim Board for Settlement of the Income-Tax Department, said the Kochi-based company previously had an agreement with Veena’s IT firm for consultancy and software support services.
Even though her firm had rendered no service, the amount was paid every month “due to her relationship with a prominent person”, the report said, citing the deposition of the minerals company authorities before the I-T Department.
However, Vijayan was quick to rubbish the charges and said the allegations were made to tarnish his image and defame him.
Earlier, sources in the I-T Department told South First that the CMRL had conducted unaccounted-for transactions of ₹134 crore between 2013 and 2020.
Out of this amount, ₹95 crore was paid to politicians, their immediate family members, media houses, officials, and some journalists, the sources added.
The public-sector Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation (KSIDC) has a 13.41 percent share in CMRL.
The Opposition has been urging the state government to prompt the KSIDC to initiate legal action against the CMRL for committing financial fraud.
The I-T Department has said the company inflated its losses to pay politicians, who would have otherwise opposed the environmental degradation caused by the company on the mineral-rich Kerala coast.
According to reports, Veena and her Exalogic Solutions had a contract with the CMRL to offer the latter IT, marketing consulting, and software services. The I-T Department reportedly claimed that no services were provided.
Since the beginning of the controversy, Veena’s husband and Kerala’s PWD and Tourism Minister PA Muhammed Riyas has commented on the issue.
When Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan tried to raise the issue in the Assembly, the Speaker cited technical reasons to deny him permission.
But the ruling CPI(M) has managed to take a stand over the raging controversy by claiming that the monthly funds were credited by a written agreement between the two signatory parties: Exalogic, headed by Veena, and CMRL.
However, Kuzhalnadan raised several allegations against the first family of the state and demanded to know whether Veena’s company paid the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) for the said transactions.
In a letter, the state tax department informed the Congress legislator that during the verification, it was found that Veena’s company had remitted the IGST for the amount that she received from CMRL. However, the letter didn’t mention any other details, including the tax amount.
(With PTI inputs)
