Setback For Pinarayi Vijayan As Kerala HC Refuses Stay On Vigilance FIR Order

(MENAFN- IANS) Kochi, Oct 13 (IANS) CPI-M veteran and former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and the other appellants on Tuesday failed to secure interim relief from the Kerala High Court against a single judge's order directing registration of a vigilance FIR in the CMRL-Exalogic alleged pay-off case.

A division bench of Justices K. Natarajan and Johnson John refused to stay the October 9 order while reserving its verdict on whether Vijayan, his daughter Veena Thaikkandiyil, her husband and former Minister Mohammed Riyas, and other appellants could challenge the ruling.

The single judge had directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register an FIR incorporating offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against them and others.

The court had also quashed the state government's decision to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct a preliminary inquiry into information supplied by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The appellants had challenged the order on the ground that they were not heard before the single judge passed a direction directly affecting them.

They have also sought the court's permission to appeal as they were not parties to the original writ petition filed by advocate K.M. Shajahan.

Senior advocates K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, S. Sreekumar and T.A. Shaji, appearing for the appellants, questioned the maintainability of the original petition.

They argued that Shajahan was a third party and that his plea should have been treated as a public interest litigation and heard by a division bench.

They also defended the state's decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR, arguing that the authorities were entitled to ascertain whether the information provided by the ED disclosed a cognisable offence.

Advocate General K. Jaju Babu supported the state's position, maintaining that a preliminary inquiry was permissible when there was doubt over the commission of a cognisable offence.

Additional Solicitor General P. Sreekumar, appearing for the ED, argued that an accused person had no right to be heard at the stage of deciding whether to register an FIR.

Shajahan, meanwhile, contended that he was entitled to seek action over alleged corruption involving public money.

He argued that offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act involved a public interest.

The case relates to alleged irregularities in financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions Pvt Ltd, a company founded by Veena.

The ED had shared information concerning the transactions with the state authorities.

The High Court's decision on the appellants' plea for permission to pursue their appeals is now awaited.

The refusal to grant an interim stay leaves the single judge's direction in force pending further orders.

MENAFN13102026000231011071ID1111800551