The Kerala High Court on October 15, dismissed applications filed by former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T. and son-in-law Mohammed Riyas seeking permission to appeal against an order directing the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) in the CMRL-Exalogic case.
A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John held that the applicants’ legal remedies against the FIR remained available. The decision concerns their permission to pursue appeals and does not determine the merits of the allegations against them.
Background
The dispute concerns alleged irregularities in financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions Private Limited, a company associated with Veena T.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had shared information concerning the transactions with the Kerala authorities. The State initially opted for a preliminary inquiry by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) instead of immediately registering an FIR.
Advocate K.M. Shajahan subsequently approached the High Court challenging the State’s approach. On October 9, 2026, Justice A. Badharudeen directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act and set aside the State’s decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry through the SIT.
Vijayan, Veena, Riyas and other persons affected by the direction challenged the order. However, they had not been parties to the original writ petition, making the question of their right to appeal a preliminary issue before the Division Bench.
The appellants’ lawyers argued that the single-judge order had affected their legal rights without giving them an opportunity to be heard. They relied on the principles of natural justice and questioned whether the original petition had been properly entertained.
Senior Advocates K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, T.A. Shaji and S. Sreekumar represented the appellants, while Advocate General K. Jaju Babu appeared for the State. The State defended its initial decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry, although it submitted that the direction to register an FIR had been complied with.
The Division Bench focused on whether the applicants had grounds to obtain permission to appeal against a judgment in proceedings to which they were not parties.
In its order, the Court observed:
“We find that the impugned judgment has not affected the right of the applicants to pursue their constitutional or statutory remedy against the registration of the FIR and in such a situation, all the applications seeking leave to appeal are dismissed.”
The Court therefore declined to grant leave to appeal to the applicants. Its decision was limited to these applications and did not amount to a finding on whether the allegations in the CMRL-Exalogic case were established.
The Kerala High Court accordingly dismissed the applications seeking permission to appeal against the October 9 order.
