Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
B.Ramkumar Adityan - Petitioner
Vs.
The Chief Election Commissioner, O/o.Election Commission of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P(MD)No.SR110146 of 2018
Decided On : 21-12-2018
People Act, 1951 - Section 29 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Claimed within the stipulated time - Due to sudden death - Political parties even if it registered - Learned counsel appearing for petitioner canvassed for maintainability of present writ petition - Prayer sought for in the writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India and in affidavit filed in support of writ petition petitioner claims to be member of All India Anna hereinafter referred to as presence of their former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu at petitioner claims that he AIADMK is a recognized party vide first respondent in State of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry which has its own Constitution known as Rules and Regulations – Held, Conduct of election within a political party to chose their general secretary or political functionaries and any amendments to Constitution of the party or internal matters within the political party which do not fall within the ambit of public duty to attract he jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India - Now petitioner has come forward to seek a writ of Mandamus, to dispose of the representations when the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot be invoked for the in-house activities of a political party question of directing Chief Election Commissioner to dispose of representations made by petitioner seeking for various prayers on different dates cannot also be maintained when authority has no duty cast upon them to monitor or direct internal election to a political party to be conducted which is only an internal activity - When Chief Election Commissioner has no role to monitor the internal activity of a political party, there cannot be directions issued to Chief Election Commissioner to dispose of the representation of petitioner also - With above discussions this Court is of view that a political party registered under section 29-A of Representation of the People Act, 1951, within Chief Election Commissioner Chief Election Commissioner has got no power to regulate internal affairs of political party – conduct of election within a political party to chose their general secretary or political functionaries and any amendments to Constitution of party or internal matters within political party which do not fall within the ambit of public duty to attract the jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India – Petition dismissed
ORDER :
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose petitions of the petitioner, dated 15.02.2017, 17.03.2017, 08.07.2017, 06.02.2018, 07.11.2018 and 12.11.2018 by affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to produce any material and clarification and pass a reasonable speaking order on main issues raised and relief claimed within the stipulated time.
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, before being numbered it is posted for maintainability as the Registry has raised certain questions with regard to maintainability of the prayer sought for by the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed for maintainability of the present writ petition. The prayer sought for in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner claims to be the member of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, hereinafter referred to as ‘AIADMK’ in the presence of their supremo Dr. J. Jayalalitha, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu at Kovilpatti on 06.12.2000. The petitioner claims that the AIADMK is a recognized party vide first respondent in the State of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, which has its own Constitution known as Rules and Regulations.
3. The petitioner further claims that the supremo of ‘AIADMK’ late. Dr. J. Jayalitha has been unanimously elected as General Secretary to their party on 29.08.2014 who appointed various persons as second, third and fourth respondents as party Treasurer, Presiding Chairman and party organizing Secretary respectively. Due to sudden death of Dr. J. Jayalitha on 05.12.2016, the respondents 2 to 5 and other top cadres instead of organizing election for selecting the new General Secretary of the party as per Rule 20(ii) of the Party’s Constitution organized a meeting of General Council members of ‘AIADMK’ on 29.12.2016 and unanimously passed a resolution and appointed V.K. Sasikala as interim General Secretary of the ‘AIADMK’ against the provisions of Rules and Regulations of the ‘AIADMK’. Earlier to the said meeting a letter, calling for emergency General Council meeting, was sent to the members of the General Council. Rule 20(ii) which according to the petitioner is as follows:-
Rule 20(ii)- The general Secretary shall be elected by the primary members of all the party units of Tamil Nadu and the members of the party in other States like Pondicherry, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Andaman Islands.?
4. The petitioner further claims that as per the resolution, passed immediately after the death of Dr. J. Jayalalitha, the council unanimously resolved that the said smt. V.K. Sasikala will be appointed as General Secretary until she is formally elected to the post by vesting all the powers vested with the General Secretary. Thus, on 30.12.2016, it was informed to the first respondent/the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi that smt. V.K. Sasikala assumed office as General Secretary with effect from 31.12.2016.
5. The petitioner further submits that as it was done in violation of provisions of the party constitution, the sixth respondent submitted petitions before the first respondent for interference. The petitioner would further claim that there is no provision or temporary gender Secretary in the Rules and Regulations of the party ‘AIADMK’. Thereafter, smt. V.K. Sasikala was unanimously elected as leader of ‘AIADMK’ legislature party at the meeting held on 05.02.2017.
6. The second respondent, O. Panneer Selvam, who was the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, who proposed Smt. V.K. Sasikala as their legislature party leader at the parties M.L.A meeting, had submitted his resignation letter to the Honourable Governor of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner would further submit that after Apex Court verdict in the disproportionate asset’s case, by which, smt. V.K. Sasikala had been l
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
