Kerala: Vigilance receives complaint seeking probe on 'payments' to CM Pinarayi Vijayan's daughter Veena

According to reports, Veena Vijayan and her company, Exalogic Solutions, had a contract with the CMRL to offer the latter IT, marketing consulting, and software services. The income tax department has reportedly claimed that no services were, however, provided. She allegedly received Rs 1.72 crore from sand mining company CMRL.

Thiruvananthapuram: The director of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau received a complaint demanding an investigation into the allegations against Veena Vijayan, daughter of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and political leaders who allegedly received money from the CMRL company. The complaint was filed by Kalamassery native and activist Girish Babu. 

In a previous ruling concerning a tax dispute between the IT department and the CMRL corporation, the Income Tax Dispute Resolution Committee said Veena received payment from CMRL for services that were not provided. A number of politicians, including leaders of the Congress, the CPM, and the IUML from the state, were named in the order as having allegedly received funds from the business.

Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Girish Babu sought an investigation into the accused. The Governor has also received a copy of the complaint.

At the same time, it is now evident that the CPI(M) will not speak up on the controversy surrounding Veena Vijayan. CPM state secretary M V Govindan on Monday walked out of a press meet when media persons raised the matter. He did not give ears to the question.

Govindan got up and left, declaring "enough," just as Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan was mentioned. He said, "I have no plans of explaining anything."

It appears that the CPM State Secretariat's written statement, which was unusual in the way it defended the daughter of a party leader, will serve as the last declaration from the party. The August 10 statement claimed that the "monthly bribe" controversy was false information spread in anticipation of the Puthuppally bye-election. The CPM described the agreement as one that was "legally" entered into by both companies acting in compliance with the law. Additionally, it stated that the funds purportedly paid to Veena were sent via a bank, indicating that they were legitimate legal transfers.