The plea alleges bribery and misuse of power by high-ranking public officials in Kerala, including State Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his daughter, Veena Thaikandiyilin.
On Wednesday, the Kerala High Court appointed an amicus curiae to support the Court in a case challenging a vigilance court’s decision not to investigate allegations of corruption and abuse of power involving high-ranking public figures in Kerala, including State Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his daughter Veena Thaikandiyil.
These allegations pertain to improprieties related to the mining and other business affairs of Cochin Mineral and Rutile Ltd. (CMRL). During a previous hearing, it was brought to the Court’s attention that the petitioner in the case had passed away. Consequently, Justice K. Babu designated attorney Akhil Vijay as the amicus curiae.
The Special Judge (Vigilance) in Muvattupuzha had declined the request for an investigation into these allegations on August 26, citing the absence of a prima facie case against the accused officials. Babu initially filed a petition with the vigilance court following an Income Tax report that revealed a payment of 1.72 crores made by CMRL to Exalogic Solutions Private Limited, an IT company owned by the Chief Minister’s daughter, Veena. The petitioner asserted that this money was given to Veena in return for providing an unfair advantage to CMRL. Furthermore, it was alleged that high-ranking public figures, including the Chief Minister and other politicians, received bribes from CMRL. All these individuals were named as defendants in the petition.
The petitioner’s complaint also noted that the Interim Board for Settlement-II in New Delhi found that the accused had violated the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988. Regarding the alleged 1.72 crore payment from CMRL to Exalogic Solutions, the petitioner contended that the Settlement Board-II labeled this transaction as fraudulent since Veena’s company did not render any services to CMRL. The vigilance court rejected the plea, asserting that the petitioner had presented only general allegations without adequate supporting material facts.
In response to the vigilance court’s decision, Babu filed a rehearing petition with the Kerala High Court. In this petition, submitted through attorney BA Aloor, the petitioner argued that all the defendants had misused their official positions, causing a loss to the public treasury. The petitioner contended that there was a strong prima facie case in this regard, in contrast to the vigilance court’s findings.
The complaint maintained that the vigilance court had dismissed the case without proper consideration of the facts and circumstances. Thus, the petitioner urged the Kerala High Court to overturn the vigilance court’s order and instruct the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to investigate the accused parties, including Chief Minister Vijayan and his daughter.
