Kochi: Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, T. Veena and P.A. Mohammed Riyas have suffered a setback in the CMRL-Exalogic financial transactions case, with the Kerala High Court refusing special permission to appeal against a single-bench order directing the registration of an FIR based on a report submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The division bench declined to interfere with the single-bench order directing the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR and investigate the allegations. The petitioners had approached the court seeking special permission to challenge the order, as they were not parties to the original petition heard by the single judge.
The court observed that an FIR had already been registered pursuant to the single-bench order and that the petitioners had the option of challenging it through appropriate legal proceedings. On this basis, the bench declined to grant permission to file an appeal at this stage.
Defence Challenges Order to Register FIR
The defence argued that the order directing the registration of an FIR without hearing the accused was legally incorrect. The lawyers representing Pinarayi Vijayan, T. Veena and P.A. Mohammed Riyas contended that the petition had been filed by a person with no direct connection to the case and questioned the maintainability of a petition with a public-interest character.
The defence also argued that the state government had already constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and initiated a preliminary inquiry following the ED’s communication. According to the petitioners, the single bench was wrong in quashing the SIT proceedings and directing the registration of an FIR by the Vigilance authorities.
The hearing on the request for permission to appeal lasted approximately three hours. However, the division bench declined to grant the special permission sought by the petitioners.
Setback for the State Government’s Position
The ruling also affects the position advanced by the state government. The government maintained that it had the discretion to order a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR and that such an inquiry was not unlawful.
The state further argued that corruption cases could be registered not only by Vigilance officials but also by other police officers of the prescribed rank. However, the single bench had set aside the SIT’s preliminary inquiry and directed the registration of an FIR based on the ED’s report.
With the division bench refusing permission to appeal, the attempt to challenge the single-bench order through this route has been unsuccessful at this stage. The petitioners may still pursue other appropriate legal remedies, while the subsequent course of the investigation remains to be seen.
