Kochi, Oct. 26 -- In a relief to former Keralam Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his kin, the Kerala High Court on Monday stayed a single judge order directing the registration of an FIR against them in the alleged CMRL bribery case.

A bench of Justices K Natarajan and Johnson John also kept in abeyance the FIRs registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) and the probe by the agency in the cases till further orders on the appeals filed by Vijayan and others against the single-judge order.

The bench also admitted their appeals against the single-judge order, saying the matter requires detailed consideration and listed the matter for hearing after four weeks.

The order came on the appeals moved by Vijayan, his daughter Veena T and her husband P A Mohamed Riyas challenging the single judge's October 9 direction to the VACB to lodge an FIR against them based on a report given by the ED in connection with the alleged CMRL bribery case.

Senior advocate N Hariharan, representing Veena and Riyas, contended that the information provided by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) does not constitute a cognizable offence or an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

"We (appellants) were not heard. If we were heard, we would have shown no cognizable offence is made out. But the single judge proceeded ex-parte behind our back," he argued.

He further argued that the petitioner, who moved the High Court seeking registration of FIR, ought to have pursued his complaint for registering a case against Vijayan and others by approaching the Sessions Court.

"If he had done so, then the sessions court would have called us to seek our opinion. To avoid that, he moved a writ petition in the High Court," the senior advocate contended.

Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Vijayan, claimed that an FIR cannot be registered just because the ED says an offence is made out.

Hariharan and Luthra argued that the transactions between Veena and Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) were being investigated by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and therefore, no other agency, including the ED, could have probed the same issue.

Luthra also contended that when hearing a third party -- the petitioner before the single judge -- the High Court ought to have heard Vijayan and others prior to issuing the direction to register an FIR.

He also argued that the single judge ought to have heard SFIO also before issuing the direction and claimed that the single judge was not informed that the SFIO probe was going on.

"Furthermore, the matter was in the nature of a PIL and therefore, it should have been sent to the bench which had the jurisdiction to hear PILs," he claimed.

He also contended that the Supreme Court has directed to proceed with the appeals and thus, the same should be admitted.

Luthra also sought that the single judge order be stayed or the interim relief granted by the apex court be extended.

The state government, represented by Advocate General Jaju Babu, contended that while it was not in agreement with the single judge order, it has complied with it by lodging an FIR and launching an investigation.

The ED opposed the appeals and contended that since the apex court has not stayed the FIR registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB) as directed by the single judge or the ECIR lodged by the central agency, no interim stay of the October 9 direction should be granted.

Last month, the ED wrote to the state police seeking registration of an FIR against Vijayan and his family, based on evidence gathered during its investigation into alleged payments by CMRL and searches conducted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Instead of registering a case, the state police decided to conduct a preliminary inquiry based on the ED's report.

Subsequently, in compliance of the October 9 of the High Court, two FIRs were registered, following which the ED initiated separate investigations under the PMLA against Vijayan and his family.

On October 15, the High Court rejected applications by Vijayan, Veena and Riyas seeking permission to appeal against the single judge's order.

They then approached the Supreme Court, which on October 21 stayed the VACB investigation for a week and directed them to pursue an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court.

However, the apex court did not stay the ED investigation.

According to the VACB's FIR, Vijayan allegedly abused his official position and adopted corrupt and illegal means to secure illicit pecuniary benefits for himself, his daughter and her company.

The FIR alleges that Veena and her now-defunct company, Exalogic Solutions, received Rs 3.28 crore from CMRL and Empower India Capital Investments Pvt Ltd through their respective bank accounts under the guise of information technology consultancy and marketing services.

Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.