Chennai 18 August : AIADMK leader and former Chief Minister Edappadi K.Palaniswami (EPS) has filed a petition with the division bench of the Madras High Court against an order issued by one judge of the same court declaring the July 11 general council meeting of the party null and null and void. The judge on the single bench, Justice G.Jayachandran was directing to keep the status of the proceedings of the council’s general meeting of June 23, in which O.Panneerselvam will become the coordinator and EPS will serve as joint co-convenor.
Vijay Narayanan, Senior Counsel representing Palaniswami Attracted the attention of the second bench of the Madras High Court represented by Justices Sunder Mohan and M.Duraiswami for an urgent hearing on the petition of the former Chief Minister on Monday.
The petitioner in his appeal claimed that the judge on the bench did not realize that the positions of coordinator and joint coordinator had been vacated and that in the event of a conflict, they could not together convene an general council or executive council meeting as ordered by the judge on single bench of the Madras High Court.
The former Chief Minister EPS added that the single judge erred and had not considered the relevant facts before deciding on the status quo to be maintained as of June 23.He claimed the judge also not considered the facts and had ruled against the council’s general meeting of July 11, which excluded O.Panneerselvam, the second leader.O.Panneerselvam from the main members of the political party.
The petitioner further stated that the judge who was single-bench has ruled without any explanation, so the order directly interferes with the internal operations of the political party and snubbed the desires of the majority of members of the party.
EPS in his affidavit stated, “The impugned (under challenge) order is a clear indication of the desires of one person for dual leadership, when the whole party has shifted towards single leadership.The observations made regarding the internal workings of the party is not subject to the scrutiny of the scrutiny of a judge.”
He claimed that the judge had been tasked to decide on an interlocutory request filed by O.Panneerselvam, while his civil suit was in the midst of litigation, Palaniswami said, the single judge held a mini-trial at the interlocutory stage and then came to definitive findings on the question of the party’s leadership.
The petitioner in the affidavit added, “The order of status qui ante cannot be made in this manner, and the impugned decision is in contradiction to the prevailing fundamentals of law.The first respondent, O.Panneerselvam, has not even made a plea in the petition to get relief in relation to the June 23rd meeting in the sense that it is in the subject of an earlier suit.” of an earlier lawsuit.”
The division bench voted to hear the appeal on Monday, if the Madras High Court Registry numbers the appeal by Thursday afternoon.
aal/dpb
.
