Kochi: The Kerala High Court has rejected a CBI petition, seeking an early hearing in the case pertaining to the Life Mission deal.
The HC pointed out that the CBI had not even filed a counter-affidavit in the case.
CBI special public prosecutor Sasthamangalam Ajith Kumar said that the additional solicitor general would appear in the case and the official procedures have not been completed in this regard.
The court ordered that after a suitable date for the additional solicitor general is found, the CBI can file a plea for an early hearing in the case.
The High Court had on October 13 issued a stay on the proceedings against Life Mission CEO in the case for two months. While stating that the probe was affected due to this, the CBI filed the petition to consider the case at the earliest.
However, Supreme Court senior lawyer K V Vishwanathan, who appeared for Life Mission, said that the petition was filed without even submitting the counter-affidavit in an attempt to seek media attention.
The court asked the CBI counsel on why the petition was submitted without filing the counter-affidavit. The counsel said that the counter-affidavit had been prepared and sent to the central office.
Unitac owner Santhosh Eappen also sought for an early hearing of the case, while claiming that his business has been hit as it was caught between the state-Centre dispute.
‘CM sought for probe by central agency’
The Union government has informed the HC that the Kerala Chief Minister had sought for a probe by the central agency into the Life Mission deal.
This was mentioned in an explanation submitted to counter a petition filed by Santhosh Eappen against the CBI probe.
The CBI probe is not without the State's approval. The Chief Minister had shot off a missive to the Prime Minister on July 8, seeking a probe. The letter stated that a coordinated probe should be held by central agencies concerned to ensure that such instances are not repeated, the Centre said.
This letter was submitted by the advocate general to the High Court division bench in another case. The petitioners claim that the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) is not applicable in the case. They also say that the project had received exemption. These statements are contradictory.
The CBI and the Vigilance questioned the petitioner.
The Union government contended that the accused cannot choose the probe agency nor make any demand on how the investigation should be held, while citing several Supreme Court rulings.
