The controversial Bolgatty land deal is causing aftershocks in the CPI(M) as the party is all set to shoot a show-cause notice to a trade union leader for failing to keep the party in the loop regarding the transactions.
Party sources said an explanation would be sought from C.D. Nandakumar, the general secretary of the Cochin Port Employees Organisation (CITU), for keeping the party and the trade union leadership in the dark on the lease deal between the port trust and the LuLu group. As the contract involved huge amount and public land, the issue should have been discussed in the party and the trade union, said party sources.
Moreover, Mr. Nandakumar was a party to the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust to send a defamation notice to veteran CITU leader M.M. Lawrence, and it has also rubbed the party leadership the wrong way.
Senior leaders of the union said they were also unaware of the developments. The significant developments were neither reported nor discussed in the party. Considering the possible fallout of the deal, it should have been thoroughly discussed in the party and the trade union, a senior union functionary said.
While K. Chandran Pillai, the CPI(M) State committee member and the State leader of the CITU, had openly defended the deal and the industrialist involved in the deal, Mr. Lawrence had called for annulling the deed.
Mr. Lawrence, who is also the president of the Cochin Port Labour Union (CITU) along with KV.A Iyer, its vice-president, had recently demanded that the “illegal” lease agreement signed between the Cochin Port Trust and the firm should be scrapped. They also argued that the port trust had overstepped its mandate in leasing out the property.
The deal had also divided two of the senior leaders of the party. C.M. Dinesh Mani, the district secretary of the party, too had called for the cancellation of the deal. The party had also appointed a two-member committee consisting of Mr. Pillai and P. Rajeev, MP, to study the issue and report back.
Party sources said an explanation would be sought from Mr. Nandakumar after the party panel submits its report. When contacted, Mr. Nandakumar refused to comment.