Former Chief Minister of Kerala and Leader of Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan and his daughter Veena T., founder of Exalogic Solutions Pvt. Ltd., have moved appeals before the Kerala High Court 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.

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 two have moved an appeal 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.

"The judgment has been rendered in violation of principles of natural justice, insofar as the affected parties like the appellant were neither made party to the proceedings nor heard, despite the judgment and consequential directions having serious adverse impact on the person and property of the appellant," it is stated.

It is also contended that the Single Judge rendered a wrong finding that the ED communication contained sufficient materials disclosing offences under the PC Act. The finding that the SIT was illegally constituted is also challenged.

The appeals further contend that the writ petition itself was not maintainable since the petitioner did not have any locus standi to prefer the same. It is also stated that the writ petition was premature since the petitioner did not wait for a reasonable amount of time to move the Court being aggrieved by non-consideration of his representations. Non-exhaustion of alternative and efficacious remedies was also raised as a ground to challenge the writ petition.

It is further pointed out that CMRL-Exalogic transactions were assigned by the Central Government to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and as per Section 212(2) of the Companies Act, no other investigation can be conducted by any other agency:

"That by mandate of law, therefore, no agency including the State Police, the Crime Branch or the VACB can take up investigation in respect of the same transactions. Registration of an FIR by the State Police, is barred. The learned Single Judge failed to consider this binding statutory bar, rendering the impugned judgment liable to be interfered with."

The appeals also raise grounds like the police is not bound to register FIR when receiving information from ED, preliminary enquiry before FIR registration is permissible in corruption cases, etc.

As an interim prayer, they have sought to stay the judgment of the Single Bench.

The appeal is moved by Advocates Gilbert George Corrreya, K.K. Ravindranath, P. Narayanan, Manu V., Thanushree Damodaran, Abhijith M.A. and Clarina Christopher P.