CHENNAI: In a significant development, the Madras High Court has dismissed the writ petitions filed by S Ramadoss, founder of the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), seeking a direction to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to freeze the 'mango' symbol and not to notify the Assembly elections in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry until he is recognised as the party president.
In his petitions, PMK founder Dr Ramadoss sought the quashing of the order issued by the poll body recognising Anbumani Ramadoss as the president of PMK. He further prayed for a direction to the ECI to recognise him as the party president along with the office-bearers appointed by him. He also sought an interim direction to defer the announcement of elections in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
In a separate petition, he sought a direction to the ECI to freeze the party's electoral symbol, 'mango,' until the leadership dispute between him and his son Anbumani Ramadoss is resolved.
Both petitions were heard by a Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan. The counsel appearing for Dr Ramadoss contended that a civil suit had already been filed before the civil court in Chennai seeking a declaration of Dr Ramadoss as the party president. Alleging that Anbumani had taken away the party and grabbed everything, the counsel emphasised that it was Dr Ramadoss who had earlier facilitated Anbumani's appointment as a Union Minister at the age of 35.
Counsel for the ECI submitted that the Delhi High Court had directed the parties to approach the civil court and contended that, in view of the pending civil proceedings and the nature of the intra-party dispute, the Commission could not intervene in the internal affairs of a registered but unrecognised political party, nor could it decide upon freezing the party symbol in such circumstances.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice orally remarked on whether a son would not heed the words of his father. In response, counsel for Dr Ramadoss stated that the son was not paying heed to his father's advice.
The senior counsel appearing on behalf of Anbumani submitted that in an earlier proceeding, Justice Anand Venkatesh had attempted mediation, but it was futile. It was further contended that the signature of Dr Ramadoss in the present writ petition raised suspicions.
Refuting the allegation, Dr Ramadoss's counsel said, "The petitioner is fully fit. He is swimming and walking. He is attending campaigns throughout Tamil Nadu. They are making false allegations."
Observing that when a civil suit in the related matter is already pending, the petitioner cannot simultaneously invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, the Bench cautioned against wastage of judicial time.
After hearing, the Bench held that as a civil suit concerning the intra-party dispute is pending before the civil court in Chennai, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies before the civil court. Holding that the writ petitions were not maintainable, the Bench dismissed both petitions.
It further observed that the petitioner may approach the ECI in accordance with and subject to the outcome of the orders passed by the civil court.