The Kerala High Court on Thursday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to continue its probe into Life Mission scam and said that it will consider Kerala government's petition against the Central agency's involvement next week.
The HC, which directed the state government to cooperate with the probe, said the hearing will take place next Thursday.
The Kerala government had on Wednesday moved the High Court to quash an FIR filed by the CBI, naming 'Life Mission' -- a housing project of the state envisaging total housing for the homeless in Wadakkanchery, Thrissur -- for alleged violation of Foreign Contribution (Regulations) Act (FCRA).
The CBI had filed the FIR on back of a complaint by Wadakancherry Congress MLA Anil Akkara, listing Santosh Eappen, managing director of Unitac Builder, Kochi, as the first accused and Sane Ventures as the second accused. Akkara alleged that there has been a violation of the FCRA act by the Life Mission, private companies and others. Under section 35 of the FCRA, the acceptance of contribution or currency by a government entity from a foreign source is a violation.
Normally, a state government has to first make a request for the CBI to take over a corruption case. However, in the Life Mission case, the FCRA violation was the stated reason for the CBI to take over the probe without waiting for the Kerala government's intimation.
The Kerala government's argument, in turn, was that there was no violation of the FCRA as neither the government nor the Life Mission was part of the construction aspect of the project. The government's role stopped with signing a memorandum of understanding for the financial assistance and identifying a location for the construction project.
As it had repeatedly maintained, the government, in an affidavit filed in the High Court, said it had no role in picking the agencies that would carry out the construction of 140 flats and a health centre in Wadakkanchery. These agencies – Unitac and Sane Ventures – were picked by the UAE Consulate, and the assistance of Rs 20 crore was routed through them. Incidentally, both are sister ventures.
The government stand is that the FCRA would not apply in the case of agencies or agents of a foreign source. Nothing in the Act prevents Unitac and Sane Ventures from receiving the money from the foreign source (the UAE Consulate), the government affidavit says. Section 4 of the Act has been cited in defence.
The Life Mission got entangled in a corruption mess after the second accused in the gold smuggling case, Swapna Suresh, told her interrogators that the Rs one crore found in her bank locker was the “commission” she had received for securing the construction contract of the Wadakkanchery project to Unitac. Unitac MD Santhosh Eapen, later, confirmed this.
Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, who was chairman of Life Mission and in whose presence an MoU was signed with UAE Red Crescent, refused to take responsibility. He said the government had no clue about the agencies picked by Red Crescent for the construction.
(It was also alleged that Swapna Suresh and the Chief Minister's then secretary M Sivasankar had flown to the UAE to talk with Red Crescent officials before the Chief Minister arrived to seal the deal)
However, documents emerged later that revealed that the Life Mission, and by default, the government was in the loop about Unitac. A letter sent by the Life Mission CEO, U V Jose, to Red Crescent endorses the sketches and plans submitted by Unitac for the project.
The MoU, which the Chief Minister took a suspiciously long time to release, also showed that the government had more to do with the project than merely identifying a location for the project. Many aspects of the MoU, notably that the government should make sure that proper agreements are entered into at all stages of the project, were followed in the breach.
Then, there was also the mystery of the UAE Consulate's role. The Life Mission CEO, in the presence of the Chief Minister, signed the MoU with UAE Red Crescent. But Unitac and Sane Ventures were appointed by the UAE Consulate. The Ministry of External Affairs had said that such a deal involving the Consulate had not come for its approval.
