Kerala HC, CM Pinarayi Vijayan (L), MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan (R) facebook
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday issued notice to Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena Thaikkandiyil and her firm Exalogic Solutions in a plea moved by Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) Mathew Kuzhalnadan alleging corruption in their dealings with Cochin Mineral and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) [Dr. Mathew Kuzhalnadan v. Pinarayi Vijayan & Ors.]
The criminal revision petition moved by the Congress MLA challenged a vigilance court’s decision to reject his plea for a probe into the financial transactions between Exalogic and CMRL.
When the matter came up before Justice K Babu today, advocate Gilbert George Correya accepted notice on behalf of Vijayan, Thaikkandiyil and Exalogic.
Kuzhalnadan’s complaint before the vigilance court was filed based on a report by the Income Tax Department which allegedly revealed that several bogus payments were made by CMRL to Exalogic and Thaikkandiyil under the pretext of availing IT and Marketing related services.
Neither Exalogic nor Thaikkandiyil had provided any service to CMRL but were given ₹1.72 crores which was received by CM Vijayan, the complaint alleged.
CMRL was also engaged in illegal mining with the support of the CM which can be seen in the bypassing of relevant statutes and orders of the Central government, Kuzhalnadan contended in his complaint.
Interestingly, the complaint also alleged that the 2018 floods, which had ravaged the State, were a man-made disaster that allowed the removal of huge quantities of sand from which minerals could be extracted.
In 2023, Kuzhalnadan moved the vigilance court seeking a probe alleging commission of offences under Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intention to commit criminal act) of the Indian Penal Code.
However, the complaint was dismissed by the vigilance court in January this year on the ground that it did not disclose the offences alleged and was politically motivated.
This prompted Kuzhalnadan to file the present revision petition arguing that had the vigilance court appreciated the complaint in its entirety, it would be clear that the offences alleged are attracted in the case.
The vigilance court’s rejection of the complaint violates the procedure laid out in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which in turn renders the order illegal, Kuzhalnadan contended.
He argued that his complaint could not have been rejected at the threshold and at best could have been dismissed after examining the complaint and any witnesses.
Kuzhalnadan contended that the vigilance court’s choice to reject the complaint violates the procedure laid out under Section 200 of the CrPC and expounded upon by the Supreme Court in various precedents.
On these, among other grounds, Kuzhalnadan has requested the High Court to set aside the order of the vigilance court and remand the original complaint for fresh consideration.
The matter will be heard next on July 2.
Kuzhalnadan was represented by advocates Bincy Job, Kuriakose Varghese, V Shyamohan, Sradhaxna Mudrika, and Kaveri Mohan.
On July 3, the Court will consider another petition challenging a different vigilance court order rejecting a plea for a probe into similar corruption allegations.
Politician Shone George had also moved a petition seeking a probe by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office into the business dealings of Exalogic Solutions. The Central government had informed the Court that the probe was underway.
