Thiruvananthapuram: The Lok Ayukta The Act amendment hasn’t taken away any powers of the body. The ordinance promulgated recently only made changes in the implementation part of the Lok Ayukta orders, said Lok Ayukta Justice Cyriac Joseph while hearing a petition against the alleged misuse of CMDR fund by the chief minister and his cabinet colleagues.
Justice Cyriac Joseph made the statement in reply to a loud thought expressed by Upa Lok Ayukta Harun-ul-rashid regarding the propriety of Lok Ayukta hearing the petition in the wake of the act amendment. Both Joseph and Harun-ul-rashid, however, made a preliminary observation that the petition against the CM and ministers comes under the purview of Lok Ayukta.
The petitioners moved the Lok Ayukta alleging misuse of CMDRF by CM and his cabinet colleagues. Listing out a number of financial aid given using the CMDRF to family of deceased political leaders, the complainant RS Sasikumar alleged in his petition that the CM and ministers had practiced nepotism and misused the fund.
The government attorney TA Shaji, who challenged the argument of senior advocate George Poonthottam, counsel of the petitioner, said the decision to grant funds from the CMDRF was taken by the cabinet and the decisions by the cabinet cannot be questioned in Lok Ayukta. The petitioner’s counsel argued that ministers being public servants would come under the purview of Lok Ayukta and hence they are responsible for the decisions taken by them individually or collectively. Lok Ayukta would hear the arguments next on March 3.
Justice Cyriac Joseph made the statement in reply to a loud thought expressed by Upa Lok Ayukta Harun-ul-rashid regarding the propriety of Lok Ayukta hearing the petition in the wake of the act amendment. Both Joseph and Harun-ul-rashid, however, made a preliminary observation that the petition against the CM and ministers comes under the purview of Lok Ayukta.
The petitioners moved the Lok Ayukta alleging misuse of CMDRF by CM and his cabinet colleagues. Listing out a number of financial aid given using the CMDRF to family of deceased political leaders, the complainant RS Sasikumar alleged in his petition that the CM and ministers had practiced nepotism and misused the fund.
The government attorney TA Shaji, who challenged the argument of senior advocate George Poonthottam, counsel of the petitioner, said the decision to grant funds from the CMDRF was taken by the cabinet and the decisions by the cabinet cannot be questioned in Lok Ayukta. The petitioner’s counsel argued that ministers being public servants would come under the purview of Lok Ayukta and hence they are responsible for the decisions taken by them individually or collectively. Lok Ayukta would hear the arguments next on March 3.
,