Chennai, April 3 (BPNS)
Madras High court had adjourned the hearing of the AIADMK case to April 20th. A Division bench of the Madras High Court has however said that no interim protection can be issued in the appeals filed by O. Panneerselvam, H. Manoj Pandian, JCD Prabhakar, and R. Vaithalingam challenged the order of a single bench of the Madras High Court against the party general council meetings held on June 22, 2022.
It may be recalled that on March 28, a single bench of the Madras High court dismissed the interim applications moved by O.Panneerselvam and his aides leading to the AIADMK declaring the election of Edappadi K. Palaniswami as the General Secretary of the party.
Within a few minutes of the Single bench order, the deposed coordinator of the AIADMK, O. Panneerselvam (OPS) moved the high court division bench seeking an urgent hearing of the case.
AIADMK leaders owing allegiance to OPS, H. Manoj Pandian, R. Vaithalingam, and JCD Prabhakar also simultaneously moved the Madras High court seeking an immediate hearing of the case.
A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justices R. Mahadevan and Mohammed Shaffiq on March 31 directed the parties to file their counter affidavits and said that whether interim relief should be granted or not would be decided on April 3.
The division bench asked whether all the parties were in agreement to take up the appeals for final hearing and pass orders when this case came up for hearing on Monday.
Senior Counsel of Madras High Court, P.S. Raman who was representing O. Panneerselvam informed the court that the AIADMK was inducting new members and also the renewal application of the supporters of the plaintiff may be rejected and sought an interim protection till then.
The court however did not allow the petition for interim protection, but said that any decisions taken by the party would be bound by the final orders of these appeals.
Senior counsel PS Raman said that the expulsion of O. Panneerselvam and others was against the party by-laws and if the expulsion was wrong, then the procedures followed for the expulsion were also wrong. The senior counsel argued that interim protection be given to the petitioner until the trial was over. The advocates of PH Manoj Pandian, JCD Prabhakar, and R. Vatihalingam also made similar requests before the court.
The senior counsel, Vijay Narayanan representing AIADMK said that the posts of coordinator and joint coordinator were abolished and hence the argument of the plaintiffs need not be considered at this juncture.
He argued that the AIADMK general secretary election was conducted keeping in mind the 2024 loksabha elections. Vijay Narayanan said that a candidate needs to get the support of 10 district secretaries of the party to contest the general secretary election and added that the plaintiff, O. Panneerselvam did not have 5 percent support in the party.
He also said that the AIADMK was contemplating on filing a case against the Tamil Nadu assembly Speaker, M. Appavu who as he has not taken a call on the party’s request not to consider O. Panneerselvam and other expelled MLAs as AIADMK MLAs.
The bench then adjourned the case for final hearing on April 20.