All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam’s expelled leader O. Panneerselvam on Friday informed the Madras High Court of having filed an appeal directly in the Supreme Court against an order passed by a single judge of the High Court on July 11 permitting the conduct of the party’s general council meet on the same day.
Appearing before Justice N. Sathish Kumar, who was seized of petitions filed by both Mr. Panneerselvam and AIADMK interim general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami against the sealing of party headquarters, senior counsel P.H. Arvindh Pandian said the appeal was filed in the Supreme Court on Thursday, and it had even been assigned a diary number.
When Justice Kumar wondered how Mr. Panneerselvam could refuse to accept the resolutions passed at the July 11 general council, which was conducted as per court orders, Mr. Pandian asked the judge to not rely upon the single judge’s order passed on that day since it had now been taken on appeal directly before the Supreme Court.
Stating that no court of law had so far ruled that Mr. Panneerselvam was not the coordinator of the party, and there was no prohibition on him visiting the party headquarters, the senior counsel said civil suits related to the disputes between the two leaders were still pending before the High Court as well as the lower courts.
Further, claiming that there was no practice as such of closing the party office on the day of the general council meet, especially when cadre from all over the State would congregate in Chennai, Mr. Pandian accused Mr. Palaniswami and his supporters of having intentionally locked the office to prevent Mr. Panneerselvam from entering it.
On the other hand, senior counsel Vijay Narayan and advocate Mohamed Riyaz, representing Mr. Palaniswami, stated that in all fairness, the police ought to have registered a case for trespass and theft against Mr. Panneerselvam and his men since it was they who had stormed into the party office, which was locked by its manager the previous night.
Referring to video footage of the violence, Mr. Narayan said it was crystal clear that the police did nothing to prevent the violence. He also filed written submissions highlighting the inconsistencies in the two orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) under Sections 145 and 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to seal and attach the party office.
He pointed out that the RDO, in her capacity as Executive Magistrate, had directed Mr. Palaniswami and Mr. Panneerselvam to appear before her on July 25 for an inquiry regarding the possession of the party office. Contrarily, in the Section 146(1) order, she had said the dispute regarding possession could be decided only by the civil court.
“These two inconsistencies reflect non-application of mind,” the counsel said and stated that Section 145 could be invoked only if there was a dispute with respect to an immovable property and not in the case of a factional dispute in a political party.
