Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.
Credit: PTI File Photo
Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan on Saturday reiterated his allegations against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his daughter Veena T, and claimed the financial dealings of her IT company were 'political funding'. Addressing a press meet at Kottayam, Kuzhalnadan, representing Moovattupuzha assembly seat, sought explanation from the ruling CPI(M) in connection with the financial transactions between a private mineral company and Veena's IT firm.
Meanwhile, he did not respond to the questions regarding the allegations of money laundering and stamp duty evasion against him and also on the alleged 'illegal resort' owned by him.
Earlier in the day, All India Lawyers Union (AILU) filed a complaint against Kuzhalnadan, who is also a lawyer, for 'professional misconduct' alleging that he owns a business, which is a violation of the Advocates Act.
"Her (Veena) IT firm received more money from the private mineral company. According to documents accessed by me, her company suffered a loss of more than Rs 63 lakh since 2014. According to documents, she invested around Rs 78 lakh to maintain her company," Kuzhalnadan alleged. He alleged that the cash received by Veena's firm was 'political funding'.
The Congress leader also asked whether Veena's IT firm had paid the IGST for the amount her company received from the private mineral company.
Meanwhile, in the complaint filed before the Kerala Bar Council, AILU Ernakulam District unit secretary Sajeev C K alleged that Kuzhalnadan has procured a licence from Chinnakanal panchayat in the hilly Idukki district to operate a resort there.
The complaint alleged that Kuzhalnadan procured a licence for the resort and was operating it, which was a violation of the Advocates Act.
'According to Rule 47 of the Bar Council of India, an advocate shall not personally engage in any business. Advocacy is a dignified profession... His act was in violation of Rule 47, which is professional misconduct and attracts action under Advocates Act,' the complaint said.
The Left party has been attacking the Congress legislator alleging that his declared assets were not in proportion to his known sources of income as revealed in the documents.
The CPI(M) has alleged that the Congress MLA bought land in Chinnakanal area to build a resort claiming that he was a resident of that area and did not have any other residence in the state. But Kuzhalnadan owns several other properties, including a flat, in the state, the Left party claimed.
Besides, the CPI(M) also contended that the Congress MLA was not running a guest house in Chinnakanal, rather it was a resort which was not permitted there under the law.
Kuzhalnadan, on Wednesday, while denying the allegations of money laundering and stamp duty evasion against him had said he was ready to face a probe by any agency or even the ruling party.
The Congress legislator had also said that he was willing to disclose all his financial documents, including those of his law firm, for investigation.
Kuzhalnadan had shot back at the ruling CPI(M) asking whether it, in turn, was ready to subject Veena and her company to investigation.
A controversy had erupted in Kerala recently over some financial transactions between a private mineral company and the Chief Minister's daughter Veena and her IT firm.
Evidence has also cropped up that showed that the company had dealings with top leaders of both the ruling CPI(M) as well as the opposition Congress-led UDF.
The issue came to the fore after a Malayalam daily recently reported that Cochin Minerals And Rutile Ltd paid a total of Rs 1.72 crore to the CM's daughter between 2017 and 2020.
The news report, citing the recent ruling of an Interim Board for Settlement, said that the Kochi-based company previously had an agreement with Veena's IT firm for consultancy and software support services.
Despite the fact that no service was rendered by her firm, the amount was paid on a monthly basis 'due to her relationship with a prominent person', the report said citing the deposition of the minerals company authorities before the Income Tax Department.