Muttil tree-felling case: circumstances leading to ex-Chief Secretary A. Jayathilak’s order under scrutiny, says Forest Minister

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

Minister Shibu Baby John | Photo Credit: H.VIBHU

Keralam Forest and Wildlife Minister Shibu Baby John has called for an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the controversial Muttil tree-felling case, including the possibility of a conspiracy behind the issuance of the Revenue order that facilitated the felling of tree and alleged lapses in the subsequent probe.

The Minister said the Forest department had resubmitted the chargesheet in the case after rectifying the errors pointed out by the Bench clerk in the court. He said the allegation surrounding the case, including claims made by the former prosecutor, would be examined.

“There are several mysterious circumstances in the case. The circumstances under which the order issued by the then Revenue Secretary A. Jayathilak (later Chief Secretary) also need to be investigated,” Mr. John said.

The Minister said the circumstances leading to the issuance of Mr. Jayathilak’s order were “particularly significant” because officials from the Revenue and Forest departments had reportedly raised concerns.

According to him, the minutes of discussions held by Revenue and Forest officials had recorded concerns that the order could lead to widespread tree-felling. He said the government would examine whether the previous administration’s actions had intentionally created circumstances that allowed the accused to escape prosecution.

Mr. John said he had spoken to the Home Minister and the Chief Minister and sought an investigation into order.

The Minister also said an official complaint had reached him by email alleging that three accused persons in Muttil tree- felling case had held a discussion at a media organisation’s office and that a journalist had witnessed the alleged meeting.

“I have received the complaints only now. It contains a serious allegation. The alleged conspiracy behind the matter also needs to be investigated,” he said, adding that he would examine the complaint before drawing any conclusions.

Mr. John said there had been lapses in the handling of the case and that it needed to be examined whether they were deliberate.

The chargesheet submitted by the Forest department was returned by the Sulthan Bathery court after deficiencies, including missing documents and technical and clerical errors, were pointed out. A revised chargesheet was subsequently submitted after the correction were made.

The Minister said he had directed the Head of the Forest Force (HoFF) to inquire into whether the lapse occurred inadvertently or deliberately and submit a report.

He rejected suggestion that the Muttil case had collapsed and said the remaining chargesheets would be filed.

According to Mr. John, the Forest department had seized 108 rosewood trees in connection with case. The accused had allegedly told investigators that nine trees had been cut from the property of a person identified as Molly and Jose. However, when the investigators inspected the property, the remaining tree trunks did not match the timber seized.

“Those nine trees do not appear to have been cut from their property. There has not been a proper investigation into where those trees were actually felled,” he said.  

He also clarified his earlier remarks on the source of the seized timber. The trees were initially seized without their exact source being established. Subsequent investigation indicated that some of the timber was connected to land covered by the controversial Revenue order. The Forest department subsequently registered cases based on the available evidence.

Responding to questions about the proposed appointment of Tom Joseph as director of the Kerala Academy for Skills Excellence, Mr. John said he had sought a report from ADGP VIjay Sakhare on allegations raised against Mr. Joseph.

The Minister said he was “not aware” of the cases reportedly pending against Mr. Joseph when the appointment was made. He said it was made on the basis of Mr. Joseph’s professional background.

He rejected the allegation that the appointment was made because of Mr Joseph’s personal association with him.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.