It also issued a notice to Congress leader Ramesh Chennithala, IUML leaders PK Kunhalikutty and VK Ebrahim Kunju, as well as Veena's firm.
Kerala High Court. (Creative Commons)
The Kerala High Court, on Friday, 8 December, issued a notice to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T Veena, and some political leaders in connection with alleged financial transactions between a private mineral company and her IT firm.
High court judge Justice K Babu also issued a notice to Congress leader Ramesh Chennithala, Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) leaders PK Kunhalikutty and VK Ebrahim Kunju, as well as Veena’s firm Exalogic Solutions, among others.
The court had earlier appointed a lawyer as amicus curiae to argue for and on behalf of the petitioner social activist Gireesh Babu of Kalamassery, who had died during the pendency of the case.
The high court was hearing a revision petition by Gireesh challenging the order of the Vigilance Special Court, Muvattupuzha, which had dismissed a plea for an investigation into the alleged illegal financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) and Veena’s firm and the suspected political leaders involved, for want of evidence.
When reporters asked the Chief Minister about the high court notice at a press conference held in Kochi, Vijayan dismissed the question and told the journalists not to worry about it as the notice was issued to him.
Meanwhile, Leader of Opposition in the State Assembly VD Satheesan alleged that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was not looking into the allegations as the Left party and the Chief Minister have a “deal” with the BJP.
A controversy erupted in Kerala after a Malayalam daily reported a few months ago that CMRL had paid a total of ₹1.72 crore to the Chief Minister’s daughter between 2017 and 2020.
The news report cited the ruling of an interim board for settlement and said that CMRL previously had an agreement with Veena’s IT firm for consultancy and software support services. It also alleged that although no service was rendered by her firm, the amount was paid on a monthly basis “due to her relationship with a prominent person”.
The vigilance court had said that apart from the general allegations made, the complainant had not furnished any material facts that would show that the political leaders had done any favours to 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, dated 12 June 2023, “does not show a prima facie case of commission of any offences”, punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
“As the complaint and the materials produced along with the complaint do not disclose sufficient material facts which will show that any of the respondents have committed any offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, this complaint is liable to be rejected,” the vigilance court had said in its order.
It also said nothing was disclosed in the complaint showing that the payment to Veena and her firm by CMRL was towards any particular favours or benefits received by the company from the chief minister.
(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.)
May 19, 2024
May 19, 2024
May 19, 2024
May 19, 2024
May 19, 2024
May 19, 2024
