Pinarayi did not record dissent

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: In an apparent bid to take the wind out of the sails of  the Opposition camp,  the Congress on Tuesday asked CPM state secretary Pinarayi Vijayan why he did not record his dissent while he was a member of  the Assembly Public Undertakings Committee, which blamed none in the palmolein import deal but only pointed out procedural irregularities and called for its non-recurrence in future.KPCC spokesman M M Hassan, who was also the chairman of  the PUC in 1996, told mediapersons here that the demand raised by Opposition Leader V S Achuthanadan and CPM state secretary Pinarayi Vijayan for Chief Minister Oommen Chandy’s resignation was politically motivated and like ‘’the devil giving sermons.’’“It is curious that a person like Pinarayi, who stands as an accused in the Lavalin case, is demanding the resignation of Chandy, whose name is not mentioned in the Vigilance report or  the court has not named him as an accused,’’ Hassan said.He asked how could Vijayan speak of political morality and legal liability. Thedivision within the Opposition on the palmolein issue has to be noted even as the LDF is gearing up to launch an agitation seeking Chandy’s resignation, Hassan said.“Both Achuthanadan and Pinarayi have no legal, moral or political right to seek the CM’s resignation,’’ he said.Vijayan was a member of  the Assembly panel which opined that there was only procedural flaws in the palmolein deal, while attesting the AG’s opinion that the state would have gained Rs 2 crore more over and above the Rs 8.5 crore had there been proper guidelines for imports, he said.The report was presented in the Assembly three yearslater by J Mercy Kutty Amma of the CPM and chairperson of the PUC on January 29, 1999.Hassan said that anyone who knows Secretarial Procedures and  Rules of  Business,  mandatory in governance, would not hold Oommen Chandy guilty in the case.