SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Admk contempt copy THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (APPELLATE SIDE)   CONT.P. No.                        of 2022 In C.M.P.No.     of 2022 In O.S.A.No.                  of 2022 In   O.A.No.328 of 2022 In C.S.No.111 of 2012 M.Shanmugam, 1268D, Solvalakshmi Nagar, K Chettipalayam, Ayyampalayam Road, KNP Colony Post, Veerapandi, Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu – 641 605                        ….PETITIONER/ APPELLANT Vs All India Anna DravidaMunnetraKazhagam, Rep. by its Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator Thiru.O.Panneerselvam and Thiru.E.Palaniswamy, having office at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. The General Council of the Central Organisation, All India Anna DravidaMunnetraKazhagam Rep. by its Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator, Thiru.O.Panneerselvam and Thiru.E.Palaniswamy, having office at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. The Central Executive Committee,

by ·

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(APPELLATE SIDE)

 

CONT.P. No.                        of 2022

In

C.M.P.No.     of 2022

In

O.S.A.No.                  of 2022

In

 

O.A.No.328 of 2022

In

C.S.No.111 of 2012

 

M.Shanmugam,

1268D, Solvalakshmi Nagar, K Chettipalayam,

Ayyampalayam Road,

KNP Colony Post,

Veerapandi,

Tiruppur,

Tamil Nadu – 641 605                        ….PETITIONER/

APPELLANT

Vs

  1. All India Anna DravidaMunnetraKazhagam,

Rep. by its Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator

Thiru.O.Panneerselvam and Thiru.E.Palaniswamy,

having office at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,

Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

 

  1. The General Council of the Central Organisation,

All India Anna DravidaMunnetraKazhagam

Rep. by its Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator,

Thiru.O.Panneerselvam and Thiru.E.Palaniswamy,

having office at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,

Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

 

 

  1. The Central Executive Committee,

All India Anna DravidaMunnetraKazhagam

Rep. by its Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator,

Thiru.O.Panneerselvam and Thiru.E.Palaniswamy,

having office at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,

Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

 

  1. O.Panneerselvam,

Co-Ordinator, AIADMK,

having office at No.226/275,

Avvai Shanmugam Salai,

Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

 

  1. E.Palaniswamy,

Joint Co-Ordinator, AIADMK,

Thiru.E.Palaniswamy,

having office at No.226/275,

Avvai Shanmugam Salai,

Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

…RESPONDENTS/

RESPONDENTS

 

  1. V. Shanmugam,

Member of the General Council,

All India Anna DravidaMunnetraKazhagam,

having office at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,

Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

 

  1. P. Munusamy,

Member of the General Council,

All India Anna DravidaMunnetraKazhagam,

having office at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,

Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

 

  1. Tamil Magan Hussain,

Temporary Presidium Chariman,

The General Council,

All India Anna DravidaMunnetraKazhagam,

having office at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,

Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

 

  1. Jayakumar,

Member of the General Council,

All India Anna DravidaMunnetraKazhagam,

having office at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,

Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

 

  1. Sreenivasan,

Member of the General Council,

All India Anna DravidaMunnetraKazhagam,

having office at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,

Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

..RESPONDENTS 6 to 10/

CONTEMNORS

 

AFFIDAVIT OF M. SHANMUGAM

 

I, M. Shanmugam, S/o. Mr.V.C.Muthusuwami,Hindu aged about 63 years, residing at Solvalakshmi Nagar, K Chettipalayam, Ayyampalayam Road, KNP Colony Post, Veerapandi, Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu – 641 605, temporarily having come down to Chennai, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows: –

 

  1. I am the Petitioner herein and the Appellant in O.S.A. No.160 of 2022. I am well acquainted with the facts of the case.

 

  1. I state that I am constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court requesting this Hon’ble Court to exercise the Contempt Jurisdiction to punish the Respondents No. 2 – 10, herein for willfully disobeying the order passed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 23.06.2022 in M.P.No. 9962 of 2022 in O.S.A.No.160 of 2022. I am seeking this Hon’ble Court to pass orders including imprisonment for their audacity in challenging the majesty of the law and to ensure compliance with its orders in future.

 

  1. I submit that I may be permitted to briefly narrate the background of the issue that warrants invocation of the Contempt jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court in the forthcoming paragraphs.

 

  1. I submit that I am a primary member of the 1st Respondent Political Party with a valid ID card issued by the Party Headquarters bearing membership No.25-68559. I state that by virtue of my holding the office of Secretary of Union Kazhagam, I became a member of the General Council of the Central Organization of the 1st Respondent Political Party.

 

  1. I submit that the Founder PuratchiThalaivar Late. Mr.M.G.Ramachandran had envisioned the internal rules of the 1st Respondent party to include requirements and provisions for the party to be transparent in its decision-making. It was his vision to ensure that the Rules of the 1st Respondent party lays foundation for internal democracy by incorporating checks and balances that allow members a voice in party affairs, promoting party cohesion and ensuring that leaders are held accountable for their decisions. The 1st Respondent party is governed by written rules that, in the usual way, operate as a contract between the members of the party. The constitution of 1st Respondent Party makes provision for various leadership roles with certain prescribed powers andit determines how the party functions, what is the role of every party’s member and structure etc. The General Council of the party consisting of individuals holding key leadership roles and representatives from various Party structures has been regarded as the Supreme decision-making body of the Party with powers to frame, amend or delete the rules of the organization. I submit that the founder, however was aware of the fact that democracy never flourishes simply because it is proclaimed. He was a visionary leader who believed that insular management, stagnant leadership structures and concentration of power in the hands of a few people all serve to undermine a Political party’s internal democracy. The Founder believed and rightly so, that in terms of the 1st Respondent party’s structures, the primary member is at the heart of the structure. The membership in the Party is open without discrimination based on race, religion, caste, gender, etc., These primary members of the party are the central component of the rules as the party relies only on those primary members to win the election. It is both inevitable and desirable that these dedicated and passionate primary members have the most vital role in a democratic political party like the 1st It is for that purpose, Rule 43 was framed in such a way that regardless of the change in nomenclature of the posts, the leader of the Party shall always be elected by its primary members.

 

  1. I further submit that, , the Founder had consciously prevented them from amending the rule 20A (ii) which provided for election of Party leader through voting by its primary members. As a matter of fact, an individual enrolls himself as a member of the 1st Respondent party by paying membership fees based on the promise that his right to elect the leader of the party, as provided in the party’s constitution will never be taken away from him by the Governing Council, hence forming the basic structure of the party. Besides Rule 20A (ii) read with Rule 43 also acts as a check on the powers of the Governing Council.

 

  1. I am advised to state that when there is a necessary or invincible disability to perform the duty or charge created by the Rule, a party is generally excused from performing it. The 1st Respondent party was faced with such a setting when the General Secretary of the Party, PuratchiThalaivi Amma left the cadres in pain and passed away on 05.12.2016. As a result, intra-party disputes arose in respect of the Party’s leadership, which resulted in proceedings being initiated before the Election commission. In order to meet the challenges then, the 1st Respondent Party had convened the General Council meeting and passed several vital resolutions. The post of General Secretary was abolished and the post of Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator were created. By making necessary amendments in the Rules of the party, the General Council had also entrusted all the powers and functions of the General Secretary upon the posts of Co-Ordinator and Joint-Coordinator and consequently elected the current office holders. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that the holding of election,as prescribed by the Rules were rendered impossible by circumstances at the time, over which the General Council had no control. Therefore, such amendments to the bylaws were then looked at as a valid excuse by the primary members of the party. However, it is to be borne in mind that where the act of God prevented the compliance of the election mandate stipulated in Rules, the relevant rule is not denuded of its mandatory character because of supervening impossibility caused once by the demise of Late General Secretary and the resulting intra party dispute.

 

  1. In this backdrop, I submit that on 24.11.2021 a joint statement of the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator was issued by the Headquarters of the 1st Respondent party regarding the convening of Executive Committee meeting on 01.12.2021. Accordingly, the Executive Committee had assembled on 01.12.2021 and passed several resolutions including a special resolution pertaining to the amendment of then prevailing Rules/Bylaws 20A (ii), 43 and 45. The amended Rules stated that the leaders of the 1st Respondent Party viz., the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator, shall be elected only by all the primary members of the party. The Rules as they stood in their amended form are extracted hereunder: –

 

“Rule 20A: THE CO-ORDINATOR AND JOINT CO-ORDINATOR

  1. ii) The Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator shall be elected by the primary members of the Party. The Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator shall be elected jointly by a single vote.

Rule 43: AMENDMENTS

The General Council will have powers to frame, amend or delete any of the Rules of the Party Constitution . But the rule that the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator should be elected only by all the primary members of the party cannot be changed or amended since it forms the basic structure of the party.

 

Rule 45: AUTHORIZATION TO CO-ORDINATOR AND JOINT-CO-ORDINATOR

The Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator are fully authorized to relax or make alterations to any of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations of the Party except rule 43.”

 

  1. I further state that the details regarding the amendment were publicized by the party headquarters on 01.12.2021 thereby informing the primary members of the fact that their right to elect the head of the party has been brought back in the rule book and that necessary approval in this regard will be obtained at the next General Council meeting. Thereafter, on 12.2021, the Election for the post of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator was notified to the electors (i.e. primary members of the party) fixing the date of election as 07.12.2021. The counting of votes and declaration of the result were to be announced as 08.12.2021. Since the existing Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator were visibly enjoying phenomenal support of the primary members of the party, none came forward to file their nomination and challenge them for the said posts. As a result, the existing Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator were declared to be elected on 6.12.2021. Thus, the election process for the organization of the 1stRespondent party was completed in accordance with the amended Bye-laws and the same was communicated to the Election Commission of India on 29.04.2022. The Primary members of the party were delighted about the fact that they had democratically elected their leaders and obtaining of the approval from the General Council was only a procedural formality.

 

  1. While matters stood thus, I submit that the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator had issued a notice on 02.06.2022, convening the General Council meeting that was to be held on 23.06.2022. As a General Council member, I had also received the notice. Like every other primary member of the party, I was also under the impression that the General Council Meeting was convened only to obtain approval to the special resolution amending the bylaws, that was passed by the Executive Committee on 01.12.2021. However, I came to understand that at the meeting to be held on 23.06.2022, the 5th Respondent and few other members of the General Council were plotting to introduce certain amendments to the Rules without the prior approval of the Co-Ordinator with an intention to delegitimize the concluded election process as well as the voting rights of primary members.

 

  1. I state that owing to the emergent situation and to prevent the above mentioned circumstances, I preferred a civil suit in C.S.No. 111 of 2022 against the Respondents 1 to 5 herein for the reliefs of permanent injunction restraining them from convening any General Council meeting on 23.06.2022 and also for an injunction restraining the Respondents 1 to 5 from placing any agenda in the meeting of the General Council of the Central Organization of the 1st Respondent to be held on 23.06.2022 with respect to the amendment of Rule 20A 1 to 13 of the 1st Respondent political party. In this action, I had moved an interlocutory application in O.A.No.328 of 2022 for the following relief:-

 

“An ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents in placing any agenda in the meeting of the General Council of the Central Organization of the 1st Respondent to be held on 23.06.2022 or on any other date with respect to the amendment of Rule-20A 1 to 13 of the 1st Respondent Political party”

 

  1. I state that the Hon’ble Single Judge vide order dated 22.06.2022 in A.No.’s 327 & 328 of 2022 in C.S.No.111 of 2022 was pleased to decline my aforesaid prayer. Aggrieved by the same, I had preferred O.S.A.No.160 of 2022 on the same day, i.e., 22.06.2022, in which, I had also sought for a stay of the common order passed by the Hon’ble Judge dated 22.06.2022 in O.A.No.’s 327 & 328 of 2022 in C.S.No.111 of 2022 and an order of injunction restraining the Respondents in placing any agenda in the meeting of the General Council of the 1st Respondent to be held on 23.06.2022 without the authorisation of both the Coordinator and the Joint Coordinator or/and pass any resolutions on the floor of the meeting including any introduction/amendment/alteration/rectification of the bye-laws of the 1st  Respondent Political Party.

 

  1. In the meantime, it was informed that a draft resolution containing 23 items was sent by the 1st Respondent party headquarters for the approval of the 4th respondent on 22.06.2022 and that the same has been approved. However, this draft resolution was not provided to any of the members of General Council, and we were still kept in the dark about other agendas/resolutions that were going to be placed before the General Council on 23.06.2022.

 

  1. I submit that considering the urgency involved in the matter, C.M.P.No. 9962 of 2022 in O.S.A.No.160 of 2022, was taken up by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court for hearing at 03.00 a.m. on 23.06.2022. I submit that the Hon’ble Division Bench, after hearing the detailed arguments of both sides, was pleased to pass the following order: –

 

“11. Since the draft resolution approved by the respondents 4 and 5 does not contain an item with regard to the amendment of the Rule-20A 1 to 13, 45 and 45, we are of the view that the appellant has made out a prima facie case for the grant of an order of interim injunction. In the event of not granting any interim order in the above petition, the appellant and the 4threspondent would be greatly prejudiced. Further, if an order of injunction is not granted, the prayer sought for in the suit will become infructuous. We are also of the view that the interim injunction sought for by the petitioner to prohibit the respondents from conducting the General Council Meeting cannot be granted. However, the General Council can discuss and take decisions only with regard to 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution, which has been approved by the respondents 4 and 5. The respondents shall not take any decision apart from the 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution The General Council are at liberty to discuss any other matter apart from the 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution, however, no decision shall be taken in the General Council Meeting with regard to the same.

  1. In the result, we permit the respondents 4 and 5 to convene the General Council Meeting at 10.00 a.m. on 23.06.2022 and we also permit the General Council to discuss and take any decision as per the Rules and Bye-Laws with regard to 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution and we make it clear that the respondents shall not take any decision other than the 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution. The members of the General Council are at liberty to discuss any other matter, however, no decision should be taken in the General Council with regard to the same.

 

Notice to the respondents 1 to 3 returnable by 19.07.2022. “

 

  1. I state that it was my case before the Hon’ble Division Bench that respondents 2, 3 and 5 unilaterally intended to introduce an agenda in the General Council Meeting to be held on 23.06.2022 for the election of a single leader for which they intended to illegally pass a resolution in the General Council of the Central Organization, which is undemocratic and against the bye-laws and practice of the party. Furthermore, it was brought to the knowledge of the Hon’ble Court that a draft resolution containing 23 items were to be placed in the General Council Meeting which was then scheduled to be held on 23.06.2022.

 

  1. I state that the Hon’ble Division Bench had taken note of my grievances and the factum of the draft resolution containing 23 items which was purported to be placed before the General Council Meeting and very clearly observed that the General Council can discuss and take decisions “only” with regard to 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution, which has been approved by the respondents 4 and 5. I state that the observation of the Hon’ble Division Bench is as clear as a crystal and can only mean that no other decisions apart from those 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution can be taken.

 

  1. I state that it is also noteworthy to mention that during the time of the hearing, it was contended by the 5th Respondent that it is the practise that subjects shall be taken up as and when the members of the council raise the same. I state that such a contention was wholly rejected by the Hon’ble Court. The relevant portion of the order is extracted herein below

 

“8. Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent submitted that it is not the practice of the party to issue any Agenda prior to the convening the General Council Meeting and the subjects would be taken up as and when the members of the council raise the same.

  1. However, the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent cannot be accepted for the reason that the draft resolution containing 23 items that were to be discussed and decided in the General Council Meeting scheduled to be held on 23.06.2022 was approved by the 4 th respondent on 22.06.2022, i.e. prior to the date of the General Council Meeting. Therefore, by the approval given by the 4 th respondent on 22.06.2022, it is clear that subjects that are to be discussed and decided in the General Council Meeting requires his approval.”

 

  1. I therefore state that the Hon’ble Division Bench made it more than sufficiently clear to the Respondents ;-
  • That subjects CANNOT be taken up as and when the members of the Council raise it.
  • That only the 23 items in the mentioned in the draft resolution can be taken up.
  • That subjects that are to be discussed and decided in the General Council Meeting requires the approval of both the Coordinator and the Joint Coordinator.

 

  1. I submit that the order of this Hon’ble Court was communicated to all the members of the party including the members of the General Council. It is safe to presume that respective counsels who appeared on behalf of the Respondents had explained them regarding the details of the order. I submit that I was of the fond hope that after the above said order of this Hon’ble Court, things would steady down and the members of the General Council would abide by the order in letter and spirit. However, to my shock and surprise, the Respondents No.2-10 have committed multiple action that shall clearly amount to both wilful breach and wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Hon’ble Division Bench. I further state that while even negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience, the action of the said Respondents brazenly reveals contumacious disobedience of the Court’s order. The multiple actions of wilful contempt that has demeaned the majesty of this Hon’ble Court is listed below.

 

  1. I state that a resolution to appoint the 8th Respondent as the Presidium Chairman was moved by the 5th Respondent and seconded by the 9th and 10th Respondent who claimed that the same was unanimously accepted by the General Council. I state that in taking these steps the Respondents 5, 9 and 10 were acting in contravention to the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court as the resolution to appoint a permanent chairman was never a part of 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution. The Respondents 5, 9 and 10 had deliberately disobeyed the order passed by this Hon’ble Court by inserting into the proceedings, as the first item, an item which did not appear in the list of 23 items viz. resolution to permanently appoint the 8th Respondent as the permanent chairman.

 

  1. I state that whilst 8th Respondent was illegally and in contempt of the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench, adorned with the post of Presidium Chairman of the 1st Respondent by introduction of a resolution in the General Council, he in furtherance of the contempt, had then accepted the issue raised by the General Council and announced that it has been decided to hold the next general council meeting of AIADMK on July 11, 2022, at 9.15 am.

 

  1. I further submit that when a delegate had presumably attempted to move the 1st item in the list of 23 items which were earlier furnished before this Hon’ble Court, the meeting became less than sedate. I do not propose to attempt any analysis of the disturbances at the meeting. On any footing there was a good deal of noise and some degree of abuses hurled at the 4th At all events, there is evidence that the 6th Respondent (Former Law Minister of Tamil Nadu) approached the microphone and screamed the announcement that the General Council is rejecting all 23 items. After the 6th Respondent yelled thrice that the General Council had rejected all the resolutions, the 7th Respondent had taken over and reiterated that all the items have been unanimously rejected by the General Council and that the General Council has placed a request to have a Single Leadership structure in the party. He further added that the 23 items placed would be approved, only if the request of the General Council is acceded to in the next General Council Meeting. It is imperative to state that the General Council, though convened to discuss and decide on the 23 items, had never circulated the same to the members attending the General Council. Even prior to the resolutions being placed before the General Council for deliberation, the 6th and 7th Respondents proclaiming to be the voice of the General Council, had unilaterally announced that all the 23 items have been rejected by the General Council. It is pertinent to mention that a few members of the General Council, including the 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 10th Respondent, had taken part in the General Council meeting with a preconception that the system of dual Co-ordinatorship should be abolished and a new system of single Leadership be brought in its place. However, only by way of an amendment could such a mutation in the structure of the party be introduced. Knowing fully well that this Hon’ble Court had prohibited the General Council from taking decisions on any other matter apart from the 23 items that were in place, the Respondents above-mentioned in order to circumvent the same, had presented the members of the General Council with a fait accompli that only if an agenda, amending the byelaws to mutate the existing structure to a Single Leadership structure, is passed, would the General Council deliberate and decide on the 23 item that were purportedly rejected by the General Council on 23.06.2022.

 

  1. I state that while the very appointment of the 8th Respondent as presidium chairman is purely contemptuous, his further action of deliberately accepting the matter raised on the floor by few members of the General Council calling for another General Council Meeting on the 11th of July, 2022 reveals their unpardonable audacity and the nefarious plot of overcoming and circumventing the orders of the Court. I state that the calling of the another General Council Meeting on the 11th of July, 2022 is to circumvent that order of the Hon’ble Court and to clandestinely and undemocratically take decisions other than the 23 items as recorded by the Hon’ble Division Bench ignoring the finding that the agenda has to be approved by the Coordinator.

 

  1. I state that these actions are conscious, calculated and audacious actions in defiance of law and cannot be brushed aside as casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts. In support of this, I wish to state that the 7th Respondent has expressly stated that when next General Committee meeting is convened based on the request raised on the floor of the General Council, resolutions for single leadership will be adopted.

 

  1. I state that it is trite law that Power of contempt can be invoked only when a clear case of willful disobedience of the court’s order has been made out. I wish to tabulate the statements made of the respondents individually at the General Council meeting held on 23.06.2022

 

Name Contemptuous Statements

 
KP Munusamy

(7th Respondent)

 all members rejected all the 23 resolutions & the only demand of General committee members is on single leadership. When next General Committee meeting is convened, all these along with resolutions for single leadership will be adopted.’
C V Shanmugam

(6th Respondent)

 “O Panneerselvam and Edappadi K Palaniswami have ceased to be AIADMK coordinator and co-coordinator of the party since the amended bylaw that led to their election last December was not approved by the general council on June 23,

………

Panneerselvam is only the treasurer of AIADMK and Edappadi K Palaniswami is the headquarters secretary of the party

….

 

As per the party bylaw, 1/5th of general council members can seek a special meeting. Upon such demand, a special council meeting has to be convened within 30 days. Since the posts of coordinator and co-coordinator no longer exist, the presidium chairman can convene. So, the July 11 meeting stands valid “
Tamil Magan Hussain

(8th Respondent)

 Announced that it has been decided to hold the next general council meeting of AIADMK on July 11, 2022, at 9.15 am.
Dr. Jayakumar

(9th Respondent)

 “He went against the party approaching the High Court and Election Commission of India instead of accepting the majority view in the party,”

 

  1. The deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court by inserting into the proceedings, as the first item, an item which did not appear in the list of 23 items viz. resolution to permanently appoint the 8th Respondent as the permanent chairman, by Respondent 5, 9 and 10, the deliberate circumvention of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court by presenting the members of the General Council with a fait accompli that only if an agenda, amending the byelaws to mutate the existing structure to a Single Leadership structure, is passed, would the General Council deliberate and decide on the 23 item that were purportedly rejected by the General Council on 23.06.2022, would all amount to violation of the orders of this Hon’ble Court and such conduct of the above-mentioned Respondents clearly establishes that these Respondents have no regard for the orders of this Hon’ble Court and are committing a deliberate and flagrant violation of the orders of this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, in order to uphold the majesty of law, it is just and necessary that the Respondents 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are punished for committing an offence of contempt of court.

 

  1. I state that these statements were made in front of the hundreds of party cadres and to the media. I state that as contemptuous statements have been made audaciously despite clear and specific directions of the Hon’ble Court, the feeling of confidence of the people in general and proper administration of justice has been affected by the notoriety of certain individuals. I state that a case of clear contempt of therefore made out and the Respondents are to be punished by the Hon’ble Court, including imprisonment by use of the contempt jurisdiction, to ensure compliance with its orders in future. I state that the Respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong and proceed to take further action in defiance and wilful disobedience of Orders of Court. I state that the Respondents cannot be permitted to pursue any action that is based on disobedience of the Order of this Hon’ble Court.  I therefore state that the present petitions are being filed.  I state that though Respondents 1 to 5 were parties to the appeal, the present petitions are being filed against Respondents 6 to 10 as well.  I state that Respondents 6 to 10 are members of the General Council, namely the 2nd Respondent and were aware of the Orders of this Hon’ble Court, which is why they have indulged in disobedience of the same so as to ensure that the Order is circumvented.  I therefore state that Respondents 6 to 10 are persons who have flouted the Orders of this Hon’ble Court and have therefore been arrayed as Respondents as well.

 

I therefore pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to ;-

 

  1. Pass an order of INTERIM STAY of the appointment of the 8th Respondent as the Permanent Presidium Chairman in the General Council Meeting held on 23.06.2022 and to further restrain him from acting in the capacity of the Permanent Presidium Chairman as the same is contemptuous and in blatant violation of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 23.06.2022 in M.P.No. 9962 of 2022 in O.S.A.No.160 of 2022

 

  1. Pass an order of AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION restraining the Respondents herein from conducting the so called “General Council Meeting” illegally announced to be held on the 11th of July, 2022 for the implementation of any decisions in view of not being without the express joint authorisation of the both the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator.

 

  1. to punish the Respondents for willfully disobeying the order passed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 23.06.2022 in M.P.No. 9962 of 2022 in O.S.A.No.160 of 2022 and thus render justice.

 

  1. Pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

 

Sworn to and signed his name                                                                  BEFORE ME

In my presence on this the

26th day of June 2022 at Chennai

After reading the contents of the                                                       ADVOCATE

Affidavit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may also like...