Ratheesh says he was forced to quit after the state government gave the Central Bureau of Investigation sanction to prosecute him for alleged misappropriation of raw cashew imports by the corporation between 2006 and 2015.
He argues that the sanction order was issued only because a single‑bench of the High Court issued interim orders directing the government to reconsider its earlier refusal to grant sanction for a CBI probe.
In August, Ratheesh and R. Chandrasekharan – the INTUC president and former KSCDC chairperson – filed an appeal before a Division Bench challenging those interim orders, contending that the single judge had exceeded his authority by overturning the state’s decision without hearing them.
The Division Bench subsequently stayed the operation of the single bench’s interim orders pending disposal of the appeal. Ratheesh maintains that, because the interim orders were stayed, any later sanction order issued by the government is legally ineffective.
He therefore requests the court to allow him to remain in his Khadi board post, asserting that the procedural irregularities nullify the basis for his resignation.
The case highlights the procedural tug‑of‑war between the state’s sanctioning power, the judiciary’s interim directives, and the CBI’s investigative mandate in high‑profile corruption probes.