C V C - PALMOLEIN GATE -

INDIAN EXPRESS

Documents related to the controversial import of palmolein by the Congress government in Kerala in 1992-93 clearly show that beleaguered Central Vigilance Commissioner P J Thomas, the eighth accused in the palmolein scam, had acted much before the state cabinet took a final decision on the supply.

The documents debunk Thomas’ justification before the media that he was only implementing the government directive.

In 1991, the Power and Energy Private Limited (PEPL), Singapore, had submitted a memorandum to then Chief Minister Karunakaran, requesting that the firm may be allowed to import palmolein.

The company submitted a detailed proposal, saying they be allowed to supply palmolein to the state under the Central Government’s then new rupee clearance scheme.

On November 18, 1991, — on the same file — Thomas allegedly wrote that palmolein could be imported from the company. He said a memorandum of understanding may be signed by the state Civil Supplies Corporation with the company for the import of 15,000 tonnes of palmolein. 

REDIFF

The Supreme Court has refused to quash a first information report filed against former Kerala chief minister K Karanukaran in the palmolein case.
Karunakaran had filed a special leave petition before it challenging a Kerala high court's order dismissing his plea to quash the First Information Report filed in the special vigilance court on the controversial palmolein case.
A division bench of the apex court on Wednesday turned down the SLP, rejecting his allegation that the case was the result of mala fides or actuated by extraneous considerations. Karunakaran has accepted the verdict and said he would fully co-operate with vigilance inquiry.
Karunakaran and seven others, including former chief secretary S Padmakumar, are accused of causing a loss of over Rs 30 million to the state by importing 15,000 tonnes of palmolein from Malaysia in 1991, violating central and state government rules.
The legal battle for prosecution begun in 1993, when one Kallara Sukumaran filed a petition in the high court following allegations of corruption in the deal raised by M Vijayakumar, who was then a Communist Party of India-Marxist MLA and who is now speaker of the legislative assembly.
According to the chargesheet, the accused had caused a loss of Rs.232 million to the exchequer by importing the palmolein at exorbitant rates. The chargesheet alleged that the agreement to import 15,000 tonnes of palmolein from P&E Ltd followed a meeting Karunakaran, who was then the chief minister, had with the representatives of the firm and its Indian representative, Mala Trading Corporation, in New Delhi in 1991.
The chargesheet alleged that the imports carried out between October 4, 1991 and April 1992 violated the central and state government rules. The Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation had reached the agreement with the Malaysia-based Power and Energy Ltd though the state government had not sanctioned it. The price, fixed on February 24, 1992, was far above the average procurement price of USD 392.25 set by the State Trading Corporation.
Vijayakumar had taken up the case when the high court dismissed Sukumaran's petition. He then filed a FIR before the superintendent of vigilance police, pleading that the case be registered. The SP turned down the plea and asked him to refer the case to the state government.
Incidentally, Karunakaran was also in-charge of the vigilance portfolio at the time.
Vijayakumar then approached the high court, which dismissed his plea. A writ appeal in the division bench of the high court was also rejected. Vijayakumar then moved the Supreme Court with a SLP. The apex court dismissed the petition.
The case was revived when the CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front came to power in May 1996. Chief minister E K Naynar, who was in-charge of the home department, directed the vigilance to investigate the case. Karunakaran challenged the move in the high court. the plea was rejected on July 1, 1997.
Pending Karunakaran's SLP in the Supreme Court, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau filed a chargesheet in the vigilance court on November 23, 1998.
The court did not take cognizance of the chargesheet, as it had not received permission from Lok Sabha speaker G C Balayogi to prosecute Karunakaran, who is now a member of the lower house. The court has granted the prosecution time till April 21 to secure the permission.
Besides, Karunakaran, the other accused include former civil supplies minister T H Mustafa, former chief secretary S Padmakumar, former chairman of KSCSC and former additional chief secretary Zachariah Mathew, former KSCSC managing director Jiji Thomson, former director board member of the KSCSC P J Thomas and two representatives of P & E Ltd.
The government has sought the central government's sanction to prosecute Jiji Thomson and P J Thomas since both are in the central service now. While the former is on deputation to the Centre, the latter is serving as a State Election Commissioner.
Karunakaran and his party claim the LDF government is taking up the matter for political reasons alone.
Karunakaran has questioned the relevance of the case being filed when the high court and the Supreme Court have already given verdicts on it. He said he would expose the "political motives of the LDF government for pursuing the case when it comes up for trial."
Karunakaran is the first chief minister in Kerala's history to face a vigilance trial. Interestingly, six of his colleagues, who were ministers in his cabinet from 1991 to 1995, are also facing trial in various cases. These are T H Mustafa, a co-accused in the palmolein case, R Balakrishna Pillai, M V Raghavan, T M Jacob, C V Padamarajan and Raghuchandrabal.

THE HINDU

KOCHI: The State Government has filed an affidavit in the Kerala High Court on Wednesday requesting permission to proceed with the palmolein import case against the former Chief Minister K. Karunakaran and others.

The affidavit, filed by G. Vijayakumaran Nair, Additional Secretary, Vigilance, contended that the previous UDF Government's decision to withdraw the case pending in the Supreme Court was erroneous.

According to the affidavit, there is no political vendetta involved in the Government's decision just because V.S. Achuthanandan, who had filed the intervene petition in the Supreme Court against the previous Government's decision to withdraw the case, happened to be the present Chief Minister.

There was no malafides or arbitrariness in the Government decision to cancel the previous Government's request to the Supreme Court to withdraw the case. Corruption was a social menace.

The existing materials warrant trial. Both the High Court and the Supreme Court found that there was material to proceed with the case, the affidavit said.

The Government said that when the previous Government led by Oommen Chandy had decided to withdraw the case, even the Public Prosecutor did not agree with the decision.

In April, 2006, the Supreme Court had permitted the UDF Government to file an application before a Special Court in Thiruvananthapuram for withdrawing the case. However, the application could not be filed in view of the Assembly elections. Mr. Achuthanandan, who was the then Leader of the Opposition, had moved the Supreme Court against the UDF Government's decision.

After the elections, the LDF Government informed the Supreme Court in June 2006, that it would not withdraw the case. The Cabinet annulled the previous UDF Government's decision to withdraw the case.

The case against Mr. Karunakaran was that he and the other accused caused a loss of Rs.2.80 crore to the State exchequer on account of the import of 15,000 tonnes of palmolein from Malaysia at an enhanced price during 1991-92