Kerala HC stays Vigilance court order in Titanium case

Registering of FIR against Chandy, Chennithala

September 02, 2014 04:06 am | Updated April 21, 2016 05:24 am IST - KOCHI:

Kochi, Kerala, 11/09/2013: Chief Minister Oommen Chandy at a function in Kochi. Photo :Thulasi Kakkat

Kochi, Kerala, 11/09/2013: Chief Minister Oommen Chandy at a function in Kochi. Photo :Thulasi Kakkat

The Kerala High Court on Monday stayed the Thiruvanathanpuram Vigilance Court’s order to register an FIR against Chief Minister Oommen Chandy, Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala, Public Works Minister V.K. Ebrahim Kunju, and nine others involved in the Travancore Titanium case and conduct an investigation. The stay will remain in force for three weeks.

Justice Abram Mathew issued the order on a petition filed by T. Balakrishnan, former Industries Secretary and one of the accused in the case.

The allegation was that the accused had conspired together to appoint M/s. MECON, Ranchi, Uttaranchal, as consultant to siphon off the fund of TTPL.

It was alleged that as per the agreement with the MECON, the consultancy charges were fixed at Rs.3.5 crores, but an excess amount was paid to the company without any fresh contract. The estimated cost as per the directives of the company would be Rs.258 crores.

It was further alleged that no global tender was invited to award the construction of the effluent treatment plant. The allegations were that instead of erecting an effluent treatment plant costing around Rs.8 crores the accused had colluded with other persons and tried to erect more expensive machinery with an intention to make an unlawful gain for the accused.

The petitioner pointed out that the Vigilance Court at a pre-cognizance stage considered the material and weighed the materials discussed in the preliminary report. The petitioner pointed out that the court, while disposing of the application, without giving an opportunity to the proposed accused, had concluded that sanction was not required to prosecute the accused since they had already ceased to hold office. However, the court failed to appreciate the fact that the offences mentioned in the complaint included an offence punishable under Section 120B IPC, for which sanction under section 197 Cr.PC. was required. The court without considering this had forwarded the complaint to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.