Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
21. Counsel submitted that although the respondents have taken a contrary stand in these proceedings, they had earlier admitted issuance of such direction.
22. Mr.Sibal argued that in the petition under the Symbols Order, two of the respondent MLAs, Mr.S.Semmalai and Mr.O.Panneerselvam, had filed affidavits which read as under:
..... a whip was issued under the AIADMK Party's seal. As per the whip issued, the MLAs of the party were directed to vote in favour of appointment of Mr.Palaniswamy as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. However, in the counter-affidavit to the writ petition, being W.P.No.26017 of 2017, Mr.S.Semmalai, has sworn an affidavit stating it is submitted in the first place there has never been a direction issued to the respondents for them to follow and therefore, there could be no question of action against the respondents under the Tenth Schedule.
23. Mr.Sibal argued that apart from Mr.S.Semmalai, no other respondent MLA had filed any counter-affidavit to the writ petitions. The counter-affidavit sworn by Mr.S.Semmalai is on his own behalf as well as on behalf of the other respondent MLAs.
24. Mr.Sibal argued that there was nothing on record to show that Mr.S.Semmalai had been authorised to swear an affidavit on behalf of all other respondent MLAs. In so far as the other respondent MLAs were concerned, the averments in the writ petition should be deemed to have been admitted.
25. Mr.Sibal emphasized that the statement in the counter-affidavit of Mr.S.Semmalai is contrary to his own sworn affidavit before the Election Commission of India. Mr.S.Semmalai has thus committed perjury in these proceedings.
26. Mr.Sibal referred to the counter-affidavit of Mr.S.Semmalai filed in W.P.No.27853 of 2017 viz., P.Vetrivel v. P.Dhanapal and others, wherein it is stated:
7.It is submitted that upon the sudden demise of Dr. J.Jayalalithaa, the Chief Minister of the State on 05.12.2016, a Ministry under the head of Mr.O.Panneerselvam was sworn in on 06.12.2016. Thereafter due to various circumstances which are in relation to persons who are not party before this Hon'ble Court, Mr.O.Panneerselvam was forced to resign as the Chief Minister on 05.02.2017. Thereafter, there were attempts made to make Mrs.V.K.Sasikala as the Chief Minister of the State and the said attempts had not fructified. Thereupon Mr.Edappadi K.Palaniswami was elected as the leader of AIADMK Legislative Party at a meeting held on 14.02.2017 at a Resort at Koovathur. The Respondents herein were not present in the said meeting and were not even issued notice for the said meeting. Admittedly the 11 persons mentioned in Paragraph 6 of the petition had not supported the resolution to appoint Mr.Edappadi K.Palaniswami as the Leader of the Legislative Party. Thereupon Mr.Edappadi K.Palaniswami sought to form the government with the support of 122 MLAs only. In fact the Respondents herein had claimed that they were the original AIADMK party in fact even while a whip was allegedly issued to each MLA independently, there was no direction or whip that was received by the Respondent herein from Mr.S.Rajendiran. The 122 MLA's who had supported Mr.Edappadi K.Palaniswami as the leader of the legislative party were bound by the direction whereas the respondents who had not signed the said memorandum or received any direction cannot be claimed to be under a direction from the party.