The Madras High Court on Monday decided to hear on Tuesday the appeals preferred by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) leader Edappadi K. Palaniswami challenging an order by a single judge in favour of the other leader O. Panneerselvam on August 17.
Second Division Bench of Justices M. Duraiswamy and Sunder Mohan ordered the petitions filed for dispensing with the certified copies of the single judge's order and decided to take up all three appeals on Tuesday since only one of them got listed for hearing on Monday.
Justice Jayachandran had passed common orders on August 17 on three interim applications taken out by Mr. Panneerselvam as well as the general council member 'Amman' Vairamuthu alias P. Vairamuthu and therefore three separate appeals had been preferred as per procedure.
Though only one appeal was listed on Monday, Senior Counsel Vijay Narayan, representing Mr. Palaniswami, commenced his arguments attacking the single judge's order and contended that the July 11 general council meet alone was the subject matter before him and yet, he exceeded his jurisdiction by setting at naught even the June 23 general council proceedings.
Pointing out that the June 23 general council meet was actually the subject matter of another suit filed by general council member M. Shunmugam and that the matter was now pending before the Supreme Court, the senior counsel said, the single judge ought not to have nullified the June 23 general council proceedings too by ordering status quo ante as on that date.
Further, referring to the second direction of the single judge that there shall be no executive council or general council meet without the joint consent of the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator of the party, Mr. Narayan said, it had led to a virtual deadlock in the party since there was no chance of them working together.
He also said, that Mr. Panneerselvam and Mr. Palaniswami were elected as Coordinator and Joint Coordinator in December 2021 on the basis of an executive council resolution. While doing so, the executive council had admitted that it was not empowered to amend the bylaws for conducting such an election and had made it clear that it's decision should be ratified by the general council. Since the resolution was not ratified by the general council on June 23, the posts of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator had lapsed, he argued.
However, Justice Duraiswamy intervened and said that his Bench would take up the appeal on Tuesday and dispensed with the production of certified copy of the order. In the meantime, if two other appeals also get numbered on Monday, they would also get listed together on Tuesday, he added.