Mridanga Vision got permission through backdoor; Kochi native files complaint to Vigilance Director
Kochi: Reports indicate that the allocation of Kaloor Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium for the Guinness record dance program organised by Mridanga Vision involved the intervention of influential persons. Initially, stadium authorities had stated that the venue could not be made available for the event. However, things took a turn, and the stadium was eventually allocated to Mridanga Vision to conduct the dance event.
In August 2024, Mridanga Vision submitted a request to use the stadium for the event. The application was submitted to GCDA Chairman Chandran Pillai. Approximately a month later, Chandran Pillai forwarded the application to the stadium's estate department.
The estate department initially decided that the stadium could not be allocated, as it had been exclusively reserved for Kerala Blasters until April 2025. The decision was based on the fact that the stadium was designated for football purposes only. The estate department had said that the international standard turf installed in the stadium could be affected by other events. This report is there in the GCDA records.
Controversy brews over stadium allocation
However, the decision was later overturned, and the stadium was allocated to Mridanga Vision. A condition was imposed that the stadium could be handed over only if a letter of consent was obtained from Kerala Blasters. Following this, it was reported that an NOC (No Objection Certificate) was secured, and the process was expedited. Records reveal that the entire procedure was completed within a matter of one or two days.
Meanwhile, a Kochi resident, Cheshire Tarson, has filed a complaint with the vigilance director, alleging corruption in the allocation of the stadium. The complaint claims that a legally inadmissible application was processed through improper channels to arrive at the decision.
Meanwhile, Cheshire Tarzan, a Kochi resident, has filed a complaint with the vigilance director, alleging corruption in the allocation of the stadium. The complaint claims that a legally inadmissible application was processed through improper channels to arrive at the decision.