Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T Veena and ten other people have been served with notice from the Kerala High Court on December 8 in connection with alleged financial transactions between a private mineral company by the name of Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions Private Limited.
The court’s action comes amidst allegations of illegal financial transactions involving CMRL and Exalogic which happen to be an IT firm owned by Veena.
Additionally, notices were also issued to Leader of Opposition and Congress leader Ramesh Chennithala, Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) leaders PK Kunhalikutty and VK Ebrahim Kunju, A Govindan, as well as Veena’s firm Exalogic Solutions, amongst others by High Court Judge Justice K Babu
The court had earlier appointed a lawyer to argue for and on behalf of the petitioner — social activist Gireesh Babu of Kalamassery — who had recently died.
The High Court was hearing a revision petition by Gireesh challenging the order of the Vigilance Special Court in Muvattupuzha, which had dismissed a plea for an investigation into the alleged illegal financial transactions between CMRL and Veena’s firm and the suspected political leaders involved, for want of evidence.
WHAT IS THE CASE?
A controversy erupted in Kerala after a Malayalam daily reported a few months ago that CMRL had paid a total of Rs 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, complete payment was made “due to her relationship with a prominent person”.
A vigilance court had said that apart from the general allegations made, the complainant had not furnished any material facts, which would show that the political leaders had done any favours to CMRL in their capacity as public servants in return for the alleged payments.
“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 added that 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.
PTI
