SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) C.S. No.           of 2022                                     Thiru. O.Panneerselvam, Co-Ordinator/Treasurer, AIADMK,

by ·

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

C.S. No.           of 2022

 

Thiru. O.Panneerselvam,

Co-Ordinator/Treasurer, AIADMK,

having office at No.226/275,

Avvai Shanmugam Salai,

Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

…..Applicant

Vs

 

  1. All India Anna DravidaMunnetraKazhagam,

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

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,

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,

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. E.Palaniswamy, .

Joint Co-Ordinator/Party Head Quarter’s Secretary, AIADMK,

having office at No.226/275,

Avvai Shanmugam Salai,

Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

 

  1. The Officer Bearers of the party Head Quarters

Represented by Head Quarter’s Secretary, AIADMK

Thiru.E.Palaniswamy

having office at No.226/275,

Avvai Shanmugam Salai,

Royapettah, Chennai-600 014                                                   …Respondents

 

 

 

AFFIDAVIT OF O PANEERSELVAM

 

I, Thiru. O.Panneerselvam, S/o. late Ottakara Thevar, aged about 71 years having office at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,  Royapettah, Chennai-600 014, do solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows ;-

 

 

  1. I state that I am present the Coordinator of the 1st Defendant Party after being democratically elected by the primary members of the 1st Defendant Party vide election conducted on 12.2021.

 

  1. At the outset, I wish to submit that I have filed the present suit as well as the interlocutory applications only for the welfare of the party and by no stretch of imagination it can be construed as being filed against the interests of AIADMK Party. I herein seek to challenge the illegal convening of the alleged General Council meeting of the 1st Defendant, AIADMK on July 11, 2022, at 9.15 am as the same is illegal and in contravention to the bye laws of the 1st Respondent Party, surreptitiously maneuvered by the Respondent No. 2-5. I state that the convening of the General Council meeting of the 1st Respondent, AIADMK on July 11, 2022, is a carefully devised sinister plot to amend the basic structure of the 1st Respondent party, to the whims and tunes of the Respondents 2-5. In order to demonstrate in depth the surreptitious scheme of the Respondents 2-5, who are circumventing the bye-laws of the 1st Respondent as well the due process of law, the vital facts are stated in the forthcoming paragraphs:-

 

  1. I state that the 1st Respondent is a recognized and registered Political Party of the Election Commission of India, formed in 1972. It is further submitted that as any Political Party, the 1st Respondent also is strictly governed by its byelaws. The latest amended bye-laws of the 1st Respondent inter alia are filed along with this application.

 

  1. I submit that the 1st Respondent Organization is in consonance with the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Rules of Election Commission of India. The Rules of Election Commission of India and the Representation of the PeopleAct, 1951 provides that, the organizational structure of the Political Party should follow the democratic process. I state that, the 1st Respondent Political Party has a Central Executive Committee (ThalamaiKazhagaSeiyarkulu) consisting of the following members :

 

Co-Ordinator and Joint – Co-Ordinator, Deputy Co- Ordinators, Presidium Chairman, Treasurer, Headquarters Secretaries, Election Wing Secretary, Party Propaganda Secretary,Legal Consultant, Party Legislative Assembly Committee Consultant, Party organizational Secretaries, All India M.G.R Manram Secretary, PuratchiThalaviPeravai Secretary, M.G.R.. Youth Wing Secretary, Women’s Wing Secretary, Student’s Wing Secretary, Anna Thozhir Sangam Secretary Advocates Wing Secretary, Minorities Welfare Wing Secretary, Agriculture Wing Secretary, Fisheries Wing Secretary, Medical Wing Secretary and Literary Wing Secretary.

 

  1. I state that based on the instructions of the Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator, the Executive Committee takes periodical decisions/resolutions for the smooth administration of the party and for executing the agenda of the 1st Respondent political party for the decisions/resolutions taken by Central Executive Committee (ThalamaiKazhagaSeiyarkulu) which will be placed before the General Council of the Central Organization (ThalamaiKazhagaPodhukulu) of the 1st

 

  1. I state that, the following persons are the members of the General Council of the Central Organization (ThalamaiKazhagaPodhukulu) and they are:

 

(i)“Chairman, Co-Ordinator, Joint Co-Ordinator, Deputy Co-Ordinators, Treasurer, Headquarters, Secretaries of the Party, the members of the General Council elected from the Districts and other States, the Members of the Audit Committee, Property Protection Committee and the Parliamentary Board.”

 

  1. I state that the General Council of the Central Organization (Thalamai Kazhaga Podhukulu) always approves the decisions/resolutions taken by the leader of the Party and those that are passed by the Central Executive Committee (ThalamaiKazhagaSeiyarkulu) and all such decisions/resolutions are implemented thereafter by the 1st Respondent Political Party. It is further submitted that the General body of the 1st Respondent Political Party was not convened for a long period of the time and functioning of the 1st Respondent Party is being done only by the decisions/resolutions taken and approved by the Central Executive Committee (Thalamai Kazhaga Seiyarkulu).I state that, all the agenda and decisions have always been deliberated in the Central Executive Committee (Thalamai Kazhaga Seiyarkulu) with the approval of the Party leadership and later placed before the General Council of the Central Organization (Thalamai Kazhaga Podhukulu) which automatically would approve the resolutions/decisions of the Central Executive Committee (ThalamaiKazhagaSeiyarkulu).

 

  1. I state that it is the practice of the party that the Central Executive Committee (ThalamaiKazhagaSeiyarkulu) would first deliberate and discuss of the policies and program’s of the party, duly approved by the Central Executive Committee (ThalamaiKazhagaSeiyarkulu) and the same will be placed before the General Council of the Central Organization (ThalamaiKazhaga Podhukulu).I state that, on 05.12.2016, the General Secretary of the Party PuratchiThalaivi Amma led the cadres in pain and passed away. Thereafter the post of the General Secretary was abolished Co-Ordinator and Joint Coordinator posts were created which were given absolute power jointly, as per Rule 20(A) of the 1st Respondent Bye-laws and the same was passed by the General Council meeting dated 12.09.2017.

 “Rule 45 of the byelaws: The Coordinator and Joint Coordinator are fully authorised to relax or make alternations to any of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations of the Party.”

 

  1. I state that likewise their tenure was also fixed as for a period of 5 years, as follows :

 

Rule 20A(3): the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator elected as per sub rule (ii) shall hold the post for a period of 5 years. As per Rule 20A(8) by the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator of the Party shall have the powers and responsibilities to convene the Executive and the General Council Meetings, to implement policies and programs of the Party as decided by the General and executive Councils, to conduct elections and bye elections for Party Organizations, to examine the accounts of all the Party units through the Audit Committee, to manage by self and through the Treasurer the income and expenditure of the Party organizations at all levels, to manage the Party Office, movable and immovable properties of the Party, to represent the Party in the legal proceedings that may arise in respect of Party properties and to take necessary legal steps on behalf of the Party to protect them.

 

The Coordinator and Joint Coordinator will preside over the Party conferences take all kinds of disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Party rules against the Party units and its office bearers who violate the Party rules, regulations or act against the Party interest, party discipline, policies and programmes, including immediate suspension of any Party unit or office bearer. The Coordinator and Joint Coordinator shall be the supreme authority to take a final decision on the disciplinary proceedings recommended by the Party units and shall have over all powers to take all steps to promote and preserve the Party policies and programs and to develop and protect the Party organizations.

 

As per Rule 20A(9): the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator are empowered to take such actions as he may deem fit on important political events, policies and programmes of urgent nature which cannot brook delay and await the meeting of either Executive Committee or General Council of the Party. Such decisions and actions have to be ratified by the General Council in its next meeting. However, it is open to the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator to obtain the views of the General Council Members on such urgent matters by post when the Council is not in session.

 

  1. I state that the said amendment was brought to the bye-laws of the 1st Respondent on 12.09.2017 and the Co-ordinator and Joint-Coordinator of the parties were entrusted with the powers of General Secretary and the said powers were acted upon by the Respondents. I state that based on the request of the primary members of the party and taking into consideration of the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(C).No. 10725/2017 & W.P. (C).No. 10728/2018, the Executive Committee had passed a special resolution in and by which amendments were made to Rule 20 (A) Part-ii, Rule 43 and Rule 45 of the Bye-laws which read as follows:-

 

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 Rulesof the Party Constitution except Rule 45. 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-ordinatorare fully authorized to relax or make alterations to any of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations of the Party except rule 43.

 

  1. I state that on 12.2021 a detailed communication was sent to the Election Commission of India with regard to the amendments carried out in the executive committee meeting and the same has been duly acknowledged. Further, on 02.12.2021, the Election for the post of Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinatorwas notified and for that purpose two Election Commissioners were appointed by the Party. The election notification was issued in and by which the date for filing the nomination was fixed as 03.12.2021 and 04.12.2021 and scrutiny of nomination was fixed as 05.12.2021, the withdrawal of nomination was fixed as 06.12.2021 and the date of the election was fixed as 07.12.2021and the counting of votes and declaration of the result was fixed as 08.12.2021.

 

  1. I state that on 12.2021 after completion of the Election process, the Election Commissioners have declared the result of the Election to the post of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator elected as unopposed as there were no contestantsand necessary certificates were also issued and the Election process was completed in accordance with the amended Bye-laws of the party and the same has been communicated to the Election Commission of India on 29.04.2022in compliance of Section 29(A) – Sub-Section (9) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 and the same has been acknowledged by the Election Commission of India. I state that subsequent to the election, at the instance of the Plaintiff, the elections for the office bearers of the organizational units of First Respondent Political Party were notified and elections were held in a democratic manner.

 

  1. I state further that by a notice of invitation dated 02.06.2022, I had convened the General Council meeting to be held on 23.06.2022 at Srivaru Venkata Chalapathy Mandapam Chennai. Further, in the aforesaid circumstances on 14.06.2022, there was a meeting of District Secretaries held in the First Respondent party headquarters. By way of a press meet given by one Dr.Jayakumar, a member of the General Council, the Plaintiff came to know that anew demand for single leadership came to be raised by few District secretaries. I submit that such a demand created turmoil in the party and primary party members (being the electors) became restless and furious. I further submit that there was no discussion or resolution with regard to single leadership of the party and it was clear that the Respondents 2 to 5 unilaterally intended to introduce an agenda in the General Council meeting on 23.06.22 for the election of a single leader. I also came to know that certain members were planning to introduce a resolution at the General Council of the Central Organization (Thalamai Kazhaga Podhukulu) to that effect, despite knowing that it is illegal and against the byelaws and practice of the party.

 

  1. I state that, in such circumstances as a dutiful member of the Political party, one Mr. Shanmugam (one of the General Council Members)was constrained to file a Civil suit before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras vide., O.A.No: 328 of 2022 in C.S.No.111 of 2022, seeking for an order of interim injunction restraining the Respondents in placing any agenda in the meeting of the General Council of 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 Political Party. However, in the above application, the single Judge rejected the relief prayed by the Plaintiff and decided not to interfere into proceedings of the Political party ie., 1st Respondent and also permitted to conduct the General Council Meeting on 23.06.2022.

 

  1. I state that as 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 the prayer sought therein, the Plaintiff therein, the said Shanmugham preferred O.S.A.No.160 of 2022 on the same day, i.e., 22.06.2022. In the meantime, it was informed that a draft resolution containing 23 items has been sent by the 1st Respondent party headquarters for the approval. After perusing the draft resolutions, consent and approval to those 23 resolutions to be placed at the General Council meeting was done. However, this draft resolution was not provided to any of the members of General Council, and they were kept in the dark about other agendas/resolutions that were going to be placed before the General Council on 23.06.2022.

 

  1. The Plaintiff further submits that the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Madrasafter hearing the detailed arguments of both sides, passed the following order as follows:-

 

“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 in gross violation of the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, in the General Council Meeting on 23.06.2022, the 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution was mischievously altered and undemocratically rejected by the member of the General Council. Much worse, the Respondents in willful disobedience of the Court’s order introduced a new resolution bereft of the authorization of Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator of the party ie., illegally appointed the 4th Respondent to the post of PERMANENT PRESIDIUM CHAIRMAN. Apart from this, the General Meeting was held in an inappropriate manner which completely spoils the dignity of the Party.

 

  1. I state that it is also noteworthy to mention that during the time of the hearing, it was contended by the Respondents that it is the practice 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 state that, only the Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator jointly has the power to call for the General Council Meeting. But on 23.06.2022 without the consent of the Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator, the unlawfully appointed Presidium Chairman of the 4thRespondent, Mr. Tamil Magan Hussain orally announced that the General Council meeting will be held on 11.07.2022, which is against Rule 20A(v) of the Bylaws of the party and contrary to law.

 

  1. I state that when a delegate had attempted to move the 1st item in the list of 23 items, a member of the General Council simply yelled in the meeting stating that all the 23 items were resolved to be rejected. I also submit that a few members of the General Council, had taken part in the General Council meeting with a preconception that the system of dual Co-Ordinator ship should be abolished and a new system of single Leadership be brought in its place. It is further submitted that only by way of an amendment could such a mutation in the structure of the party be introduced.

 

  1. I state that the very appointment of the 5th Respondent as the permanent 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 is an absolute violation of the order of the Hon’ble Court as well as an illegal action to disregard the bye laws of the party. Furthermore, the very calling of 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 to alter the structure of the party to my prejudice.

 

  1. I state that in this regard, one of the General Council members, the said Mr. Shanmugham filed a CMP 14011 of 2022 under Order 39 Rule 2A seeking an order from the Hon’ble Court to punish the contemnors. The said matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court.

 

  1. I submit that further on 26.06.2022 without the consent and signatures of both Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator, a notice was circulated allegedly issued by the Party Headquarters Secretary. In the said notice, it is stated that as per the request of the Headquarters’ office bearers there will be a meeting on 27.06.2022, Monday at 10.00 A.M. in the M.G.R. Maaligai, Head Office and all are requested to participate. It is pertinent to state that as per the Rule 20A(v) of the by-laws of the AIADMK party, the Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator of the Party shall be responsible for the entire administration of the Party. Thus, only with the consent of Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator of the Party, any meeting can be convened.

 

  1. I also that a notice of invitation dated 26.06.2022 to attend the meeting on 27.06.2022 was neither signed nor authorised by both the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-ordinator, as it is against the rule 20A(v) of the Bylaws of the party. The Applicant therefore issued a statement raising his objections to the aforesaid unlawful meeting and notified that no members are bound to act upon the decisions taken at the unlawful meeting held on 27.06.2022 at the party headquarters convened in the name of Head Quarter’s Party Secretary.

 

  1. I state that, as per the rule 26 of the Bylaws of the party, which speaks about the responsibilities of the Headquarters Secretary of the AIADMK as follows: –

 

Rule 26: HEADQUARTERS OF AIADMK.

  1. The Headquarters of the AIADMK shall function from the Tamil Nadu
  2. The Headquarters office will be located in Chennai for attending the day-to-day functions of the party and for maintaining contacts with all units of the party.
  • One of the Secretaries of the central organization nominated by the Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator will be incharge of the Headquarters office.

 

Thus, as per the rule 26 of the Bylaws of the party clearly shows that the Party Headquarters’ Secretary has no power to convene any meeting. On the contrary, only of Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator of the party has power to convene meeting under rule 20A(v) as follows: –

RULE 20A(v):The Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator of the Party will be responsible for the entire administration of the Party.

 

Hence, as per the bylaws of the party the unlawful meeting held on 27.06.2022 shall be treated as null and void and the decisions taken in the meeting shall not bind over the party members. Hence, the present suit was filed.

 

  1. I state that despite interim directions from the Hon’ble Court, the Respondents No.2-No.5 have been deliberately and malignantly attempting to convene the illegal meeting on 11.07.2022 to illegally alter the bye laws of the 1st Respondent to one person’s unlawful advantage. If the same is permitted to be convened, the very basic structure of the party, the spirit of the party cadres and the future of the 1st Respondent will be permanently damaged.

 

  1. The Plaintiff states that as per the rules of the party, registered with the Election Commission of India under Section 29-A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator alone are authorized to convene the meeting of the General Council and Executive council. However, if l/5th of the members of the General council request the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator to convene the special meeting, it is obligatory on the part of the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator to do so within 30 days of receipt of such a requisition. It is however, imperative to mention that no other office bearer or member of the General Council is vested with the power to convene the meeting, even in the absence of the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator.

 

  1. I reiterate that neither under Rule 19 nor under Rule 20 A there any provision to convene the meeting by any person other than the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator of the party. Therefore, any action by any other person in that regard would be an intrusion of the rights of the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator, and the same would only be unauthorized.

 

  1. I state that as per the party rules, the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator have a very vital role to play, and effective functions to discharge. I state that the 1st Respondent has an entire Political Body is administered by the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator. This authority cannot be usurped by the Presidium Chairman or any office bearer of the party.

 

  1. I state that while that being the case, on 04.07.2022, I was served with an illegal and unlawful notice dated 01.07.2022 issued by the 6thRespondent herein, inviting the me to the General Council meeting to be held on 11.07.2022. It has been wrongfully stated in the notice that since the amendment made to the party bye-laws on 01.12.2021 were not approved by the 2nd Respondent in the General Council meeting held on 23.06.2022, the Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator cannot function forthwith and that the 6th Respondent now assumes power by virtue of Rule 20A (vii) of the party bye-laws. I state that the 6th Respondent has given a complete goby to the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench whereby the Division Bench had permitted the 2nd Respondent to discuss and take decisions only with regard to the 23 resolutions that were approved by the Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator and had observed that the 2nd Respondent cannot take any decisions apart from the 23 resolutions. Nonetheless, it is pertinent to mention that the 23 resolutions which were to be placed before the 2nd Respondent, served to me on the day of the general council meeting, i.e.,23.06.2022, did not even include a resolution to approve the amendments to the bye-laws dated 01.12.2021. Therefore, it would lie in the mouth of the 6th Respondent to state that the amendment made to the party bye-laws on 01.12.2021 were not approved by the 2nd Respondent in the General Council meeting held on 23.06.2022, when no such resolution to that effect was even placed before the 2nd The 6th Respondent cannot today assume power based on an illegal act and usurp the powers of lawfully elected Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator.

 

  1. I state that even assuming without admitting that the Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator cannot function forthwith as alleged, the 6thRespondent, by virtue of Rule 20A (vii), is only permitted to hold office and continue to function till the new Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator are elected and assume office. This rule does not vest with the 6th Respondent the powers and duties of the Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator, for it is the Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator alone who are vested with the power to convene the executive and general council meetings.

 

  1. I further state that the 6thRespondent in utter disregard for the bye-laws of the party and in an attempt to usurp the powers of the Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator, has issued this illegal and unlawful notice inviting me and other General council members to the General Council meeting to be held on 11.07.2022, based on an alleged requisition made by 1/5th of the members of the General Council on 23.06.2022. As per Rule 19 (vii), it is only the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator who are vested with the power to convene the Special Meeting based on requisition. Neither under Rule 19 nor under Rule 20 A there is any provision to convene the meeting by any person other than the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator of the party. As stated supra, even in the absence of the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator, no other office bearer or member of the General Council is vested with the power to convene the meeting.Therefore, in view of the above it is stated that the notice issued by the 6th Respondent is illegal, unlawful and in utter violation of the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench and the bye-laws of the party. The purported resolutions proposed to be passed on 11.07.2022, as mentioned in the notice, therefore will not have any legal sanctity and the same would be void in the eyes of law and therefore requires the interference of this Hon’ble Court.

 

  1. I state that the very convening of the General Council meeting to be held on 11.07.2022 is ultra vires the bye laws of the 1st Respondent of the party. It is an admitted fact that the said General Council meeting to be held on 11.07.2022 has been convened not only without the authorization of the Applicant but also against the very interest of the 1st Respondent party. Needless to state that the very action of convening the meeting after illegally appointing a Permanent Presidium Chairman is contemptuous and ex facie illegal. Thus, there appears to be a prima facie case. Secondly, if the said meeting is convened on 11.07.2022, the Respondents can very well disrupt the very basic structure of a political party that has been functioning over several decades. In the event of such illegal and undemocratic amendments taking place, irreparable loss shall occur and the same can never be compensated in terms of money. Thirdly, on the other hand, if the said General Council meeting dated 11.07.2022 is injunct temporarily, no prejudice shall be caused to the Respondents since it is not as if the Applicant herein is seeking for an abolishment of the General Council. Therefore, the balance of convenience is very well in favor of the Applicant herein for seeking an interim injunction as the ingredients for granting of an injunction are more than just satisfied.

 

  1. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

 

  1. Pass an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents from convening the alleged General Council meeting of the 1st Respondent party which is scheduled to be held on 11.07.2022 based on an anonymous notice dated 1.07.2022 pending disposal of the suit and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice

 

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai on                                              Before Me

This the      day of July ,2022 And signed

his name in my presence.                                                        Advocate, Chennai

 

You may also like...