Kannur: In a fresh development regarding the case involving former Kannur district panchayat president P P Divya, retired teacher Gangadaran from Kuttiattoor revealed that there was no mention of Naveen Babu accepting a bribe or committing any act of corruption in the complaint he had filed with the Vigilance. Divya is currently facing charges of abetment to suicide after Naveen, who served as the Assistant District Magistrate (ADM) of Kannur, was found dead at his official quarters last Tuesday.
In her bail plea, Divya claimed that Gangadaran had filed a complaint with the Vigilance against Naveen on September 4. She further argued that she was invited to the ADM’s farewell meeting, and businessman T V Prasanthan had bribed Naveen to secure a No Objection Certificate (NoC) for his proposed fuel station.
Naveen’s body was discovered hanging on Tuesday morning, just one day after Divya, a prominent CPM leader, allegedly disrupted his farewell event and accused him of taking a bribe from Prasanthan. Naveen, who had recently been transferred to his home district of Pathanamthitta, which had just six months remaining before his retirement, reportedly felt distressed by the accusations.
According to sources, Divya claimed that she stumbled upon the farewell event while passing by, a claim that was refuted by the Kannur Collector, who submitted a report stating that she had not been invited.
Gangadaran’s complaint, which he said, was focused on the ADM and other revenue officials’ refusal to overturn a village officer’s decision, which prevented him from proceeding with the reclamation of his land. He alleged that opposition influence led to the unfavourable decision and called for an investigation into the officials’ actions. Despite filing the complaint, Gangadaran stated that Vigilance had taken no follow-up actions, and no statements had been recorded. He also clarified that his complaint had no connection with the circumstances surrounding the ADM’s death.
Gangadaran also approached the Human Rights Commission with three complaints regarding his concern. Two were rejected, and no action was taken on the third.
Villagers filed complaints with the Revenue Department against Gangadaran, alleging that he obstructed water flow to nearby paddy fields by reclaiming his land. Among the complainants were a retired magistrate and his son. This led to the authorities taking action against Gangadaran.
