CHENNAI: AIADMK leader Edappady K Palaniswami (EPS) on Thursday moved the Madras High Court against a single judge order dated August 17, which directed for maintaining status-quo as of June 23, thereby nullifying the party's July 11 general council meet where his rival O Panneerselvam was removed from all posts while EPS was picked as the interim general secretary.
Describing himself as Joint Coordinator/party Head Quarters Secretary of the AIADMK, Palaniswami filed the appeal, which prayed the court to grant an interim stay of Justice G Jayachandran's order, pending disposal of this Original Side Appeal.
The appeal cited OPS, the first respondent in the appeal, as Co-ordinator/Treasurer of the AIADMK party EPS' senior counsel made a mention before a division bench of Justices M Duraiswamy and Sundar Mohan this morning and as advised by the bench, Palaniswami filed the appeal later.
Among other things, EPS contended in his appeal that by granting an order of status quo ante as on June 23, the single judge has virtually interfered with the decisions taken in the general council meetings held on June 23 and July 11 and the same is directly in contravention of the order of the Supreme Court dated July 6 this year passed against the order of a division bench of this court, which had placed restrictions on the GC meeting held on June 23.
The SC has ultimately stayed the operation of this order, he pointed out.
The single judge's order has completely disregarded the order of the SC, which has passed an order in respect of the GC meeting dated June 23 and has proceeded to hold that the status quo ante as on that date is to be restored.
The reliefs sought for by OPS in the Original Application had already become infructuous as on the date of the hearing of the application and that he had not sought for any amendment of any relief or had filed a fresh application.
In such circumstances, the judge ought to have dismissed the Original Application in limine.
It is erroneous to restore status quo ante as on June 23 by holding that there shall be no Executive or General Council Meeting without the joint consent of the appellant (EPS) and the first respondent (OPS).
By granting such a relief, the judge has traversed beyond the scope of the Original Application as well as the main suit and as such the same is unsustainable in law.
"From the above, I submit that it is clear that the impugned order suffers from several illegalities and infirmities that would be bad on the face of it.
I submit that the petitioner (EPS) herein has therefore made out a prima facie case for grant of necessary interim orders in his favour.
By a bare perusal of the impugned Order, it is clear that the judge has misconstrued several bylaws and has also ignored vital evidence that has led to the passing of this erroneous order," the appeal said.
The resolutions passed in the July 11 meeting have been fully acted upon and at an interim stage there was absolutely no material on record for the judge to arrive at such erroneous findings.
Further he has passed the order by reversing the test for granting an injunction.
Hence, it is liable to be set aside on more than one ground.
"It is an unworkable, irrational and arbitrary order," EPS alleged.
A grave prejudice and hardship will be caused to the Petitioner/Appellant if the interim order of stay of operation of the single judge's order is not granted pending disposal of this Original Side Appeal, whereas, no such prejudice or hardship will be caused to the Respondents (OPS) if the interim orders are passed in his favour, EPS said.