CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Friday refused to grant a stay or order a status quo on the AIADMK’s July 11, 2022 general council resolutions that paved the way for the election of Edappadi K Palaniswami (EPS) as the party’s interim general secretary and expulsion of O Panneerselvam (OPS) and his supporters.
Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy, who heard OPS supporter and MLA PH Manoj Pandian’s petition, said he couldn’t pass any orders without hearing the respondents. “There might be an urgency in hearing the plea within a reasonable period. However, that cannot become grounds for issuing an exparte order,” the judge said. He ordered notice to the respondents, including EPS and OPS, mentioned as the joint coordinator and coordinator respectively, to respond to the suit. Subsequently, the judge posted the matter to March 17.
Pandian filed the suit, along with an application, seeking a permanent injunction against EPS from functioning as the interim general secretary of the party as per the resolutions passed last year, to the effect of abolishing the post of coordinator, joint coordinator, and creating the post of interim general secretary; and prayed for an order for maintaining status quo until the main suit is disposed of.
He filed suit in the wake of a recent Supreme Court order which upheld the legality of the July 11 general council meeting but refrained from passing orders on the legality of the resolutions, noting that it can be contested before the High Court.
Senior counsel Guru Krishnakumar appearing for Pandian contended that the resolutions, passed to abolish the coordinator and joint coordinator posts and creation of interim general secretary post, went against the spirit, with which AIADMK founder MG Ramachandran chalked out the bylaws.
He said the principles of natural justice and party bylaws were violated when Pandian was expelled without being issued a show cause notice. Senior counsels CS Vaidyanathan and Vijay Narayan, representing Edappadi K Palaniswami, said that the petitioner has been forwarding the same arguments for the past nine months. They also sought time for filing a counter-affidavit.