Thiruvananthapuram: Justices have different opinions on the verdict of the Lokayukta in the complaint that the Chief Minister’s relief fund was diverted. The Lokayukta observed that the aid was given in haste without even a Cabinet note. However, according to Deputy Commissioner Harun Al-Rasheed, this kind of assistance has been provided by the previous ministries as well.
Lokayukta Justice Cyriak Joseph’s judgment said that some of the existing norms were violated in disbursing money from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund. The finding of Lokayukta is that it is not a proper practice to bring the money as an out-of-agenda as per the instructions of the Chief Minister without even being included in the agenda of the cabinet.
But the Lokayukta takes a stand in the judgment saying that there is no evidence to disqualify those who did this. The Upalokayuktas have a different position from all this. It is mentioned in Upalokayukta Haroon’s judgment that not only one government has provided such financial assistance.
His judgment also mentions that he provided financial assistance to the family of lyricist Yousafali Kecheri and provided financial assistance to the family of actor Thilakan. The crux of the judgment is that during the UDF and LDF governments, similar financial assistance was provided. Upalokayukta Babu Mathew P said that Section 14 of the Lokayukta Act cannot be considered as the decision of the Cabinet is not a decision of an individual. Joseph says in judgment. Arguments in the High Court on appeal will be crucial for the government in the context of differing opinions among the justices.
Summary: Justices differ on Lokayukta’s verdict on CM’s relief fund plea
2023-11-14 01:04:27
#Justices #differ #Lokayukta #verdict #complaint #diversion #Chief #Ministers #relief #fund
