Cashew Corp Scam: Former KSCDC Officials Move Kerala High Court Against Single Judge Orders Leading To Prosecution Sanction Against Them

Appeals have been moved before the Kerala High Court by two former officials of the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation (KSCDC), who have been accused of corruption and causing loss of crores of rupees to the Corporation.

Former Managing Director K.A. Ratheesh and former KSCDC Chairman R. Chandrasekhar, against whom sanction to prosecute has recently been granted, have moved the appeals challenging various interim orders passed by the Single Bench while considering a contempt plea initiated after the State's repeated refusal to grant sanction.

The interim orders were challenged alleging judicial overreach by the Single Bench by refusing to accept the State's refusal to grant sanction and by proceeding on determining its correctness. It is further contended that the Single Bench compelled the sanctioning authority to give sanction to prosecute against them and thereby, curtailed their right to challenge the sanction order.

Among the orders under challenge is one passed on July 17, where the Single Bench had recorded satisfaction with the State's order granting sanction to proceed against these two persons, and had directed the CBI to file final report in the case within 2 weeks.

The Single Bench has presently reserved its verdict in the contempt petition with respect to the order to be passed against Industries Secretary Mohammed Hanish and K. Biju IAS, Secretary of the Forest and Cashew department. Both had tendered their unconditional apology before the Court on different occasions.

The former was criticised by the Court for refusing to grant sanction despite repeated directions. Biju had passed the order granting sanction but he also was subject to criticism for allegedly making contemptuous remarks in a cancelled government order where sanction was earlier granted.

In the said cancelled order, Biju had stated that sanction was "forced" to be given because of the Single Bench's orders and there was no application of mind by the government. Moreover, a copy of this cancelled order was given to one of the accused persons, who conducted a press conference where he read out the remarks. The order was, thereafter, cancelled upon the advice of the Advocate General.

While the contempt petition stands reserved for orders, the appellants have moved appeals alleging that except for the decision regarding the punishments to be given to Hanish and Biju, all the other issues have been finally decided by the Single Bench. 

The Registry had noted various defects in the appeals as Ratheesh and Chandrasekhar were not parties to the contempt proceedings and they had challenged multiple interim orders of the Single Bench in their two separate appeals.

When the matter came up today, the Division Bench comprising Justice K. Natarajan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar asked the appellants to cure the defects noted by the Registry.

It orally questioned the appeals and further asked them to challenge the grant of sanction or implead themselves in the proceedings before the Single Bench:

"Of course, sanction is granted against you. You challenge it in appropriate law...You are not party before the Single Judge in the contempt. You file application to implead yourself...We don't understand, how can you file appeal in contempt case? Direction to some public servant...To pass sanction order means to either to give or not to give...If the government has granted sanction, you can challenge that very sanction...Now, order of the Single Judge is executed. If it is executed and you are aggrieved with the order, you challenge that order.....Even if Court passed no direction and CBI obtained the sanction, is there no right to challenge the chargesheet? Even the validity of the sanction can also be challenged. The manner in which sanction is granted without verifying the documents, without application of mind, sanction is granted, that can be challenged."

However, Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar appearing for the appellants contended that the entire proceedings before the Single Bench is already over and sanction order has already been passed on Single Bench's direction.

After hearing the parties for some time, the Court directed the appellants to first cure the defects in the appeals. It added that separate interim orders cannot be challenged in one single appeal: "There are different different orders, different different cause of action...Overall issue may be one."

The case is posted to Friday (August 14) next.

Case Nos: Filing Nos. WA 1534/ 2026 and WA 1576/ 2026

Case Titles: K.A. Ratheesh v. Kadakampally Manoj and R. Chandrasekharan v. Kadakampally Manoj