A petition filed in the Kerala High Court has challenged the vigilance closure report in the Punarjani flood rehabilitation scheme case, seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into alleged irregularities in the collection and use of foreign funds. The petition was filed by Thiruvananthapuram-based activist K M Shajahan, according to a report by The Times of India.
The Punarjani scheme was launched in 2018 to rebuild houses and assist victims of the Kerala floods in the Paravur assembly constituency. The report identifies V D Satheesan, who represented the constituency, as having launched the initiative when he was the leader of the opposition. However, the report also refers to him as chief minister in its opening paragraph, creating an unresolved inconsistency about his official position. That detail requires confirmation from the court filing or another authoritative record.
According to the petition, Satheesan travelled privately to the United Kingdom in October 2018 and used a lunch meeting in Birmingham to solicit and collect foreign contributions for the scheme. The petitioner has alleged that the fundraising and subsequent handling of the money raised questions under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010.
The petition states that a vigilance preliminary inquiry report prepared in 2025 found evidence of wrongdoing and recommended a CBI investigation. It further claims that the then vigilance director endorsed that recommendation. The petitioner has alleged that, after the vigilance director was replaced, the new director overruled the preliminary inquiry findings and closed the case on the ground that there was no vigilance angle.
Shajahan has described the decision as an abuse of administrative power intended to protect Satheesan, the Manappatt Foundation and its chairman, Ameer Ahammed. These are allegations made in the petition and have not been independently established in the material supplied for this report.
The petition also refers to Section 3(2)(a) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, which the petitioner says bars members of state legislatures from accepting or soliciting foreign contributions. It alleges that the state government and the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau dropped corruption charges under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
At the same time, the vigilance closure report, as described in the report, found no legal basis or evidence directly linking Satheesan to the collection, handling or administration of the funds. It stated that the money was processed through the Manappatt Foundation’s banking channels and that the foundation’s transactions were legal, audited and compliant with the FCRA.
The dispute therefore centres on whether the vigilance authorities were justified in closing the matter after an earlier preliminary inquiry recommended a CBI probe, and whether the available material establishes a direct connection between Satheesan and the funds. The petitioner has asked the high court to set aside the closure report and enforce the earlier recommendation for a CBI investigation. The supplied report does not state whether the court has issued notice, admitted the petition or fixed a hearing date.
