Cashew Corp Scam: Kerala High Court Dismisses Appeal By Industries Department Secretary, Asks Him To Appear Before Single Judge

The Kerala High Court on Monday (June 15) dismissed an appeal filed by Mohammed Hanish, the Principal Secretary of the Industries Department (Cashew) of the State government challenging an order of the Single Bench directing his personal appearance in a contempt case initiated for refusing sanction to the CBI to prosecute allegedly corrupt ex-officials of the State Cashew Development Corporation (KSCDC).

A detailed judgment is awaited.

In the impugned order, the Single Bench had found Hanish to have prima facie committed contempt of court for not granting sanction despite repeated directions by the Court. The Single Judge had also directed him to re-consider sanction to prosecute former Managing Director K.A. Ratheesh and former Chairmen E. Kasim and R. Chandrasekharan.

The allegation against the accused was that they entered into criminal conspiracy with Jaimon Joseph, Proprietor of M/s JMJ Traders and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, dishonestly awarded contracts to M/s JMJ Traders, in violation of rules, causing losses of several crores to the corporation.

The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John today heard detailed arguments on behalf of the counsel appearing for Hanish and for Kadakampally Manoj, who had filed the writ petition after sanction was refused for the first time. Manoj then filed a contempt plea after no positive action was taken.

Referring to Kadakampally Manoj v. State of Kerala and Ors., wherein another Single Judge of the Court had found prima facie materials that the accused persons committed the offences alleged against them, the Division Bench held that the appellant cannot refuse sanction by superseding the said findings. It thus dismissed the appeal:

"Present appellant cannot supersede the findings of the High Court in respect of there is a prima facie material that the accused persons committed the offence and caused wrongful loss to the exchequer or the government. The Court has held that there is a prima facie materials against the accused persons that they have committed the offence and until the sanction is accorded, the CBI cannot proceed with the prosecution. Therefore, on this context, Single Judge of this Court directed the appellant to pass a fresh order. In spite of the direction, the appellant passed...order and same was set aside by the Single Judge in the interim order in the contempt of court case. And once again,...order was said to be passed by him. Therefore, we do not find any error committed by the Single Judge of this Court calling the appellant before him to answer the charges. If at all, he has not committed..., the appellant is entitled to seek for discharge from the contempt case by raising his bona fides…In such circumstances, this Court cannot interfere with the order of this Single Judge directing him to appear in the contempt of court case also. Appeal is dismissed."

Last week, the Single Bench considering the contempt plea had directed Mohammed Hanish to positively comply with its order to re-consider sanction to prosecute allegedly corrupt ex-officials.

When the order was passed, the counsel appearing for Hanish sought time for appearance and compliance with the afore order of the Single Bench since he was presently holding charges in another department. However, the Division Bench opined that he can seek time before the Single Bench:

"After the disposal of the writ appeal, the senior government pleader brought to our notice, the Single Judge of this Court by interim order dated 10.6.2026 had given direction to pass the order on or before 19.6.2026 but the present appellant Mohammed Hanish is said to be transferred from the said department to some other department. Therefore, he may require some more time to complying with the order of the Single Judge. In view of the circumstances, we direct the appellant to seek extension of time before the Single Judge."

"Then you go before the Single Judge and tell that now I can't pass the order, now I am transferred. I can't pass the order. Implead the other person in contempt case, present person...Let him appear before the Court and say I couldn't pass the order because I am already transferred. Therefore, a new Secretary may be impleaded and direction. Let the other Secretary pass the fresh order...He can ask for discharge," Justice Natarajan orally said.

Thus, the appeal has been dismissed.

Background

The contempt plea was moved after the State again declined nod for CBI prosecution, despite a previous direction of the High Court in Kadakampally Manoj v. State of Kerala and Ors. setting aside State's first order refusing to grant sanction in the matter.

During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the Court had passed an interim order setting aside the second order refusing sanction and directing the State to again consider CBI's request. Later, on 29.10.2025, the public prosecutor submitted that again, order was passed, refusing sanction for a third time.

Thereafter, on April 10, the Single Judge had ordered personal appearance of the Principal Secretary after finding that he was prima facie in contempt of the Court's judgment. The Court had also quashed the denial of sanction to prosecute the official and directed for re-consideration of the same in compliance with the afore judgment by May 18.

Against this order, an appeal has been preferred before the Division Bench. On May 29, the Division Bench had dispensed with the personal appearance of the Principal Secretary till the appeal is disposed of. 

Case No: WA 1093/ 2026

Case Title: Mohammed Hanish v. Kadakampally Manoj

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 326