Vigilance court dismisses Congress MLA Kuzhalnadan plea against Kerala CM’s daughter T Veena’s firm

Meanwhile, Kuzhalnadan said the order was unexpected and would take further action after going through the judgement.

ByPTI

Published May 06, 2024 | 3:17 PM Updated May 06, 2024 | 3:17 PM

Dr Mathew Kuzhalnadan, Congress MLA from Kerala

A vigilance court in Thiruvananthapuram on Monday, 6 May, dismissed the petition filed by Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan seeking a court-monitored probe into the alleged financial transactions between a private mining company and the now-defunct IT company of T Veena, the daughter of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.

Kuzhalnadan had initially approached the Special Vigilance Court in Thiruvananthapuram, saying the Vigilance Department refused to probe the financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) and Veena’s company Exalogic.

Later, he changed his stance and sought a court-monitored probe into the alleged financial transactions. The court dismissed the plea after a detailed hearing on the documents submitted by the Congress legislator.

Also Read: Kerala Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan booked for alleged land encroachment

‘Will take further action’

Meanwhile, Kuzhalnadan said the order was unexpected and would take further action after going through the judgement.

Earlier, a Vigilance Special Court in Muvattupuzha, had dismissed a plea by a social activist for an investigation into the alleged illegal financial transactions between CMRL, Veena’s firm, and the suspected political leaders for want of evidence.

The High Court is currently hearing a revision petition challenging that order in the matter.

A controversy erupted in Kerala after media reports that the CMRL had paid a total of ₹1.72 crore to the chief minister’s daughter between 2017 and 2020.

The reports cited the ruling of an interim board for settlement and said that CMRL previously had an agreement with Veena’s IT firm for consulting and software support services.

It was also alleged that though no service was rendered by her firm, the amount was paid on a monthly basis “due to her relationship with a prominent person.”

The report also cited findings by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) against her firm.

Quoting the ROC report, the Congress-led UDF opposition claimed that offences of receiving money using false documents and without providing services had been committed by Veena’s firm.

(Disclaimer: The headline, subheads, and intro of this report along with the photos may have been reworked by South First. The rest of the content is from a syndicated feed, and has been edited for style.)