AIADMK’s interim general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami moved the Madras High Court on Tuesday, challenging the proceedings initiated by a Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) under Sections 145(1) and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to lock and seal the party headquarters in Royapettah, Chennai.
Justice N. Sathish Kumar accepted senior counsel Vijay Narayan’s request for an urgent hearing of the case, and directed the Registry to list it for hearing on Wednesday.
When a similar request was made on behalf of expelled leader O. Panneerselvam in the afternoon, the judge agreed to hear that case too, if it gets numbered.
In an affidavit filed through his counsel on record K. Gowtham Kumar, Mr. Palaniswami said the party apprehended an attack by Mr. Panneerselvam and his men at its headquarters during the general council meet at Vanagaram near Chennai on Monday to renounce dual leadership and elect a single leader. Therefore, the party’s organising secretary D. Jayakumar submitted a representation to the Greater Chennai Police Commissioner on July 8, seeking police protection at the headquarters. However, the police protection was not accorded and the police never acted on the complaint, the petitioner alleged.
The petitioner said he was also the headquarters secretary in-charge, besides his current position of the interim general secretary, and on the day of violence, he, the office manager and other staff were in Vanagaram to attend the general council meet and, hence, the party office was locked. Recalling that Mr. Panneerselvam had filed a case against the conduct of the general council meet and that the orders in that case was pronounced by the High Court, minutes before the meet commenced, the petitioner accused the former of storming into the party headquarters fearing that the verdict would go against him.
Most men who accompanied Mr. Panneerselvam were not even party cadre. They ransacked the party office with deadly weapons, Mr. Palaniswami said. He accused the police of having supported Mr. Panneerselvam’s cause. “The entire event was premeditated and orchestrated with the police support,” the affidavit read.
The petitioner pointed out that before attaching a property under Section 146 of Cr.P.C., it was mandatory for the RDO to have passed an order under Section 145(1), calling upon the parties concerned for an inquiry if a dispute with respect to a property had lead to breach of peace. However, in the present case, the order under Section 145(1) appeared to be an afterthought, he said.
Mr. Palaniswami said that the order passed by RDO K. Sai Vardini under Section 145(1) was served on him only around 6:30 p.m. on Monday. He asserted that there was absolutely no dispute over ownership or possession of the party headquarters, which rightfully belonged to the party and not to any individual.
Stressing that he was elected the interim general secretary of the party in a meeting convened legally on the basis of orders passed by the Supreme Court as well as the High Court, and therefore was fully entitled to possession of the building, the petitioner said the RDO’s proceedings were “completely outrageous and illegal.”
Panneerselvam’s affidavit
In his affidavit, Mr. Panneerselvam urged the court to quash the RDO’s order and issue a consequential direction to her to hand over the possession of the party headquarters to him since no civil court had, so far, passed an order or a decree stating that the posts of coordinator and joint coordinator was abolished or became vacant.
Referring to the cases related to the dispute over the leadership of the party pending before the Supreme Court as well as the High Court, Mr. Panneerselvam said, in such circumstances, the action taken by the RDO was unwarranted. He also claimed to have been in possession of the party headquarters before the RDO intervened.
