KOCHI: The Kerala High Court issued notices on Friday to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T Veena, and UDF leaders, including Ramesh Chennithala, P K Kunhalikutty, and V K Ibrahim Kunju, along with 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 CMRL and the political leaders.
Justice K Babu, acting suo motu, included the political leaders and Veena in the case, issuing notices to them during the hearing of a petition originally filed by the late social activist Gireesh Babu of Kalamassery.
The case was posted for orders today. However, the court said, "The parties should be arrayed as accused in the petition, otherwise it will go against the decision of the Supreme Court. Hence, suo motu impleading them and issued notice." The matter is treated as part-heard, said Justice K Babu.
The amicus curiae appointed by the High Court had earlier submitted that there was sufficient prima facie material in the complaint for ordering a preliminary investigation into the allegation of financial transactions. The order of the Vigilance court was incorrect. The special court ought to have referred the complaint for a preliminary inquiry into the allegations, said Advocate Akhil Vijay, amicus curiae.
While rejecting the plea of late Gireesh Babu of Kalamassery, the Special Court had held that without sufficient materials a proceeding against a public servant on allegations of commission of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be initiated. It also stated that the materials produced along with the complaint do not disclose sufficient material which will show that any of the political leaders committed any offences under the PC Act.
The amicus curiae pointed out that the reasoning that there were only vague allegations and no material to substantiate the same is incorrect as the court has not considered the order of the Interim Settlement Board, New Delhi wherein many admissions were made by the officers of the company that would disclose offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The allegations were specific and backed by cogent material which was part of the valid judicial proceedings. A preliminary inquiry should have been ordered to ascertain the veracity of the allegations. If the allegations were wrong during the investigation, it was well and good. 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 the company made illegal payments to overcome the threats and obstruction caused to its smooth functioning. Besides, the question of obtaining sanction from the government under the provision of the Prevention Corruption Act as the accused are public servants would arise only when the vigilance court decided to proceed with the investigation after the preliminary investigation found substance in the allegations.
The amicus curiae pointed out that the company's officers deposed before the Interim Board stated that the payments were made to the members of political parties for the smooth functioning of their business.
The state government had argued that there was no sufficient material to probe into the complaint.