News

Kerala High Court dismisses plea for CBI probe into TVM Mayor Arya Rajendran's controversial letter

The plea sought an inquiry by an impartial authority into the alleged nepotism by the Mayor and LDF Parliamentary Secretary while appointing persons for posts in the Health Division of the Municipal Corporation.

Giti Pratap

The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed a plea seeking a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a judicial enquiry into a letter that Thiruvananthapuram Mayor, Arya Rajendran had allegedly sent, seeking a list of members of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M], for appointment to various posts in the Health Division of the Municipal Corporation [GS Sreekumar v State of Kerala & Ors.].

Justice K Babu delivered the verdict.

The plea alleged that the Mayor, along with the LDF Parliamentary Party Secretary, had requested the CPI(M) Party District Secretary to provide the list of party members for appointment to various posts in the Health Division of the Municipal Corporation on a contract basis.

The petitioner argued that the acts of nepotism of Rajendran and Anil are against the oath taken by them while assuming office as Councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation.

He further alleged that in the last two years, more than a thousand appointments were made in the said manner and, therefore, a detailed investigation is necessary in this matter.

The petitioner claimed that he apprehends that there are powerful persons to help the Mayor and the LDF Parliamentary Party Secretary to hush up the matter even though the petitioner had filed a complaint before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau.

Therefore, the petitioner approached the court to direct investigation by an impartial authority, either the CBI or a judicial enquiry headed by a a sitting judge not below the rank of the Subordinate Judge.

When the matter came up before the Court previously, Director General of Prosecution, Senior Advocate TA Shaji, submitted that a crime has been registered in respect of the facts narrated in the writ petition alleging offences punishable under Sections 465 (forgery) , 466 (forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc) and 469 (forgery for purpose of harming reputation) of the Indian Penal Code, based on a statement submitted by Rajendran.

The petitioner was represented by advocates KR Rajkumar, Jagadeesh Lakshman and Rahul Raj.

No regular matters on Wednesdays, Thursdays at Supreme Court: First reform by CJI Sanjiv Khanna

How foreign law degree holders who did bridge course can enrol? Karnataka High Court clarifies

Bombay High Court allows resumption of flower offerings at Shirdi Saibaba temple

Jammu & Kashmir High Court questions State's failure to evict ex-ministers/ MLAs from official bungalows

The importance of empowering women with knowledge of their legal rights in family law

SCROLL FOR NEXT