CMRL pay-off: Kerala HC issues notice to CM, other political leaders

kerala high court issues notice to chief minister pinarayi vijayan, UDF leaders, CMRL on petition challenging dismissal of plea for probe into alleged illegal financial transactions. Amicus curiae submits sufficient prima facie material for ordering preliminary inquiry. Petition dismissed on sole premise of no prima facie material. Allegations of illegal payments to overcome threats and obstruction to company's functioning. Sanction from govt for further investigation to arise only after preliminary inquiry.

The Kerala High Court on December 8 (Friday) issued notice to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena, prominent United Democratic Front (UDF) leaders, including Ramesh Chennithala, P.K. Kunhalikutty and V.K. Ebrahim Kunju, 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 the CMRL and the political leaders.

Justice K. Babu ordered impleading of the political leaders and issued them notice when a petition filed by social activist Gireesh Babu of Kalamassery (since dead) came up for hearing. 

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 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.

The amicus curiae appointed by the High Court had earlier submitted that there were sufficient prima facie material in the complaint for ordering a preliminary investigation into the allegation of financial transactions. The amicus curiae said that 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 documents produced by the complainant were not “loose papers”. They were documents scrutinised during the judicial proceedings. Therefore, the finding of the Vigilance court that the documents produced by the complainant were loose papers was misplaced.

He also submitted that the allegations were specific and backed by cogent materials which were part of the valid judicial proceedings. The plea for a Vigilance probe was dismissed on the sole premise that there was no prima facie material to substantiate the charges.

The allegation was that illegal payments were made by the company to overcome the threats and obstruction caused to its smooth functioning. It was further submitted that the question of obtaining sanction from the government under the provisions of the Prevention Corruption Act to proceed against the accused would arise only when the Vigilance court decided to proceed further with the investigation after the preliminary investigation revealed substance in the allegations.