Madras High Court to hear on Monday plea to stall AIADMK’s July 11 general council meet

The Madras Excessive Court docket is slated to listen to on Monday a plea to restrain All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) from convening its normal council assembly on July 11. The court docket may also take a name on staying the appointment of A. Tamil Magan Hussain because the presidium chairman of the occasion.

Justices M. Duraiswamy and Sunder Mohan would additionally take up for listening to an utility filed by normal council member M. Shanmugum to punish occasion leaders Edappadi Okay. Palaniswami, C.Ve. Shanmugam, Okay.P. Munusamy, Mr. Hussain, D. Jayakumar and Dindigul C. Sreenivasan for alleged contempt of court docket.

Submitting a collection of sub functions in a pending unique aspect attraction, the litigant advised the court docket the occasion’s founder M.G. Ramachandran had meant that its supremo ought to all the time get elected by the first members and subsequently the bylaws of the occasion have been additionally drafted to mirror his intention.

Accordingly, former Chief Ministers O. Panneerselvam and Mr. Palaniswami have been collectively elected as coordinator and joint coordinator respectively of the occasion by the use of a single vote course of in December 2021. Such election course of needed to be ratified by the occasion’s normal council that met on June 23 this yr.

Nevertheless, when information leaked within the media that there was a plan to move a decision in favour of unitary management through the June 23 meet, the litigant filed a civil swimsuit within the Excessive Court docket on June 22 and sought an interim order restraining the occasion from passing any such decision within the normal council.

A single choose of the Excessive Court docket refused to move any such interim order. Nevertheless, on attraction, the Division Bench led by Justice Duraiswamy restrained the overall council from taking a choice on any new decision however for 23 draft resolutions that had been authorised by the occasion coordinator Mr. Panneerselvam.

The order was handed at 4:40 a.m. on June 23 after a particular listening to held on the choose’s residence and it was communicated to the counsel representing the occasion and its leaders. But, in defiance of the court docket order, Mr. Palaniswami moved a decision to nominate Mr. Hussain as presidium chairman and it was seconded by Mr. Jayakumar and Mr. Sreenivasan, the litigant claimed.

Those that seconded the decision additionally claimed it was unanimously accepted by the overall council. Stating that the appointment of Mr. Hussain was not a part of the 23 draft resolutions, which the court docket had permitted the overall council to debate, the litigant claimed Mr. Palaniswami, Mr. Jayakumar and Mr. Sreenivasan had subsequently wilfully disobeyed court docket orders.

He contended Mr. Hussain was additionally responsible of contempt for the reason that latter, after being appointed as presidium chairman, introduced that the subsequent normal council meet could be held on July 11. The very appointment of Mr. Hussain was “contemptuous” and his additional motion reveals “unpardonable audacity and nefarious plot” for circumventing court docket orders, the litigant mentioned.

The litigant sought to punish Mr. Munusamy for saying that each one 23 draft resolutions had been rejected by the overall council, with out even issuing a duplicate of these resolutions to all members, moreover stating that the occasion needed unitary management and {that a} decision to that impact could be handed within the subsequent normal council meet.

He accused former Legislation Minister C.Ve. Mr. Shanmugam of getting introduced that each Mr. Panneerselvam and Mr. Palaniswami had ceased to be the coordinator and joint coordinator of the occasion since their election in December 2021 had not been authorised by the overall council.

The litigant additionally accused Mr. Shanmugam of claiming the newly appointed presidium chairman was totally competent to convene the subsequent normal council meet and that additional selections could be taken in that meet.

“The respondents can’t be permitted to pursue any motion that’s based mostly on disobedience of the order of this honourable court docket,” the litigant mentioned and sought to restrain the conduct of the subsequent normal council meet on July 11 moreover punishing the leaders for contempt and staying the appointment of Mr. Hussain as presidium chairman.