CMRL-Exalogic Case: Kerala High Court Refuses To Stay Order For Vigilance FIR Against Pinarayi Vijayan, Kin
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (October 13) reserved its verdict in the petitions filed by former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T. and her husband Muhammed Riyas seeking permission to appeal against the Single Bench order directing the Vigilance director to register FIR against them in the CMRL-Exalogic pay off case.
The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John however, refused to grant an interim stay of the judgment.
The Court today heard detailed arguments by Senior Advocates K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, S. Sreekumar and T.A. Shaji for the appellants, Advocate General K. Jaju Babu for State, ASGI P. Sreekumar for the Enforcement Directorate and Advocate V. Sethunath for the writ petitioner.
Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena T., founder of Exalogic Solutions Pvt. Ltd., and her husband/formed Minister Muhammed Riyas moved separate appeals challenging the Single Bench order directing registration of Vigilance FIR against them in the CMRL-Exalogic pay off case.
They have also filed petitions seeking leave/permission to move the appeal since they were not made party in the proceedings before the Single Bench.
Arguments raised
One of the primary arguments made on behalf of the appellants is that they were not heard while an order affecting them was passed. It was argued that they were necessary parties in the writ petition before the Single Bench, which had occasion to see the materials communicated by the Enforcement Directorate. It was contended that
The appellants also argued that the writ petition was in the nature of a public interest litigation, which ought not have been entertained by the Single Bench. They further pointed out that the writ petition was filed by a 'meddlesome interloper', who had alternative remedies under criminal law, if he was aggrieved.
The ASGI on behalf of the ED has argued that there is no right for the accused to be heard. It was also pointed out that when the Single Bench order was implemented, the scope of interference is limited.
The writ petitioner argued that he is a tax paying citizen and when crores of public money are looted, he is aggrieved. It was also contended that in case of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, there is always a public interest involved.
The AG also made arguments on behalf of the State. It was pointed out that the special team was constituted to verify whether cognizable offences are made out and that the information supplied by the ED was not clear on the same.
Background
On Friday, a Single Bench had directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register an FIR incorporating offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena as well as her husband/ex-Minister Mohammed Riyas based on the information passed by the Directorate of Enforcement.
The Single Bench had found that the government's decision to conduct preliminary enquiry without registration of FIR is illegal considering the facts of the case. It had also set aside the State's order forming Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct preliminary enquiry.
Aggrieved by the direction, the three have moved appeals before the Division Bench. It is contended that they were not heard by the Single Bench before passing an order that directly affects them, violating principles of natural justice.
Counsel for the appellants: S. Sreekumar (Sr.), T.A. Shaji (Sr.), Gopalakrishna Kurup (Sr.). Ameen Hassan K., Lisna Sherin T.T., Ummul Fadla T., Abdul Fathah, Rajesh A., Muneer Ahmed, Gilbert George Corrreya, K.K. Ravindranath, P. Narayanan, Manu V., Thanushree Damodaran, Abhijith M.A. and Clarina Christopher P.
Counsel for the respondents: K. Jaju Babu - AG, P. Sreekumar - ASGI, V. Sethunath