Noose Tightens Around Kochi Mayor Minimol as Documents Expose Rs 3 Lakh Fraud on Road Work

Kochi: The legal trouble deepening around Kochi Mayor V K Minimol has taken a more serious turn with the emergence of documentary evidence in a case alleging she misappropriated Rs 3 lakh by falsely promising road repair work. A letter written by Minimol herself demanding the transfer of funds from a flat construction company, dated February 13, 2019, has now come to light, along with company records confirming that a cheque for Rs 3 lakh was handed over. A vigilance report further establishes that Minimol received the money into her own account and returned it only when it became clear that exposure was imminent.

The incident dates to 2018–2019, when Minimol was serving as councillor for the Palarivattom division. A flat construction project in the Peringad Residents area of Palarivattom required building materials to be transported via Kalavath Cross Road, raising concerns about road damage. The construction company deposited Rs 5 lakh as a security against such damage. When the road did sustain damage, Minimol convened a meeting of the Residents Association, promised that the Corporation would carry out reconstruction through its contractors, and requested that the company's deposited funds be transferred for the purpose. The association accordingly handed Rs 3 lakh to Minimol.

The contractor subsequently carried out the repair work — but entirely at the Corporation's expense. It emerged that Minimol had not used the Rs 3 lakh for any road work, prompting the Residents Association secretary to approach the courts.

The Muvattupuzha Vigilance Court recently ordered that an investigation be conducted against Minimol and directed that prosecution sanction be sought from the government under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court found evidence that Minimol had received money and misused her official position, and categorically rejected the argument that returning the amount after the complaint was raised could serve as a defence, noting that the collected funds had never been spent on construction as claimed.