BY EMAIL, SPEED POST AND RPAD

Date: 26^th December 2022

To

Mr. Balaji Srinivasan & Mr. K. Gowtham Kumar, Advocates

No. 70/10, 2^nd Street,

Karpagam Avenue,

MRC Nagar, Chennai — 60029 Also at:

24, Lawyers’ Chambers

Supreme Court of India New Delhi – 110001 balaii@241c.in gowtham@sgchambers.com

Sirs,

Sub: Reply to Legal Notice dt. 20.12.2022 sent to Thiru O.Panneerselvam

Upon instructions from my client, Thiru O. Panneerselvam, Coordinator of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (“AIADMK” or “the Party”), the following is brought to you by way of reply to the legal notice referenced above:

1. Our client is in receipt of your legal notice dt.20.12.2022, purportedly on behalf of your client, the AIADMK. At the outset, our client states that Thiru Eddapadi K. Palaniswamy has no authority to represent the AIADMK. Thiru K. Palansiwamy is only the former Joint Coordinator, now masquerading as the purported Interim General Secretary of the Party after the conduct of an illegally convened meeting on 11.07.2022 that he is now seeking to project as a meeting of the General Council of the Central Organization (“General Council”) of the AIADMK. Without prejudice to the above, our client states the following by way of reply.
2. Your notice has been issued on wholly presumptuous assertions and claims in the teeth of the pending proceedings in SLP (C) Nos. 15753 of 2022 and batch. The notice proceeds on the assumption of the validity of the purported General Council Meeting held on 11.07.2022 and the decisions claimed to have been taken therein. However, the very validity of the convening of the said meeting is in issue in C.S.No. 118 of 2022 and C.S. No. 119 of 2022, and the orders passed in OSA Nos. 227, 231 and 232 of 2022 arising out of such civil suits are the subject matter of the abovementioned bptch of graieeprakash@yahoo.com

SLPs. Indeed, the notice under reply is a continuation of a series of attempts by Thiru K. Palaniswamy to overreach the pending judicial proceedings.

3. The repeated allegations in your notice of supposed fraudulent claims by my client is absolutely unjustified and objectionable. The allegations of forgery are also at once untenable and unfortunate.
4. Adverting to the specific allegations in the notice, our client states the following as a para-wise reply to your legal notice:

• Paras 1 & 2: The issuance of the notice dt. 17.12.2022 (Headquarters Announcement) is a matter of record. The allegation that the notice is fraudulent and illegal is denied. It is also denied that our client has committed any misrepresentation by holding out that he is the Coordinator and Treasurer of the AIADMK, and that he has forged the seal of the AIADMK and affixed any forged seal on the notice dt. 17.12.2022. Our client is validly functioning as the Coordinator and Treasurer of the AIADMK, and is indubitably a three-time former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. In such capacity as Coordinator of the Party, he had shared the notice, which was validly and legally issued. Our client was elected as Coordinator by the entire primary membership of the Party, which has been duly intimated to the Hon’ble Election Commission of India (the “Hon’ble ECI”) under Section 29A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 . He was also appointed as Treasurer of the AIADMK in 2007, by the Part’/s eternal General Secretary, and he has been holding the post continuously since then. The precipitate language used in your legal notice is only to buttress a false claim and is unfortunate and unjustified.

11. Para 3: The statements in this paragraph are denied outright as self-serving and for making sweeping allegations, which are no more than an empty threat. c. Para 4: The statements in this paragraph are denied as legally untenable and factually false. Your client’s reliance on the so-called resolutions passed at the meeting held on 11.07.2022 is egregiously incorrect, since the validity of the very convening of the meeting is in challenge. When such is the position, the so-called resolutions passed therein for purportedly expelling our client from the membership of the Party have no legal effect whatsoever. In any event, under the PartVs byelaws, the General Council does not have any powers to expel the Coordinator from the primary membership of the Party.
12. Para 5: The statements in this paragraph are denied in their entirety. It is false to state that the notice dt. 17.12.2022 is forged or that it has been issued in a fraudulent manner. It is blatantly incorrect to state that no post of Coordinator exists in the AIADMK Party as on date. Paragraph 49 of the Order dt. 02.09.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in OSA Nos. 227, 231 and

232 of 2022 has clearly left open the issue of whether the post of Coordinator graieeprakash@yahoo.com

has lapsed as a matter to be determined at trial in the pending civil suits. In such circumstances, our Client is undoubtedly the Coordinator of the Party and is well within his rights to inform the public of this position. Your client’s reliance on the purported resolutions passed at the meeting held on 11.07.2022 to contend that our client is the Coordinator is completely incorrect, since the validity of the very convening of the meeting is in challenge.

20. Para 6 – 7: The statements in this paragraph as denied since they are a complete misrepresentation and deliberate misreading of the order dt. 20.07.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the referenced Crl. OPS and of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order dt. 12.09.2022 in SLP (Crl) No. 7119 – 7121 of 2022. In its Order dt. 20.07.2022, the Hon’ble Madras High Court had merely directed that possession of the Party headquarters be handed over to Thiru K. Palaniswamy. The High Court’s order was limited to the context in which it was made, i.e., challenges to orders passed under Section 145 of the Cr. P.C. The High Court’s order was not in any way decisive of the legal entitlement of the parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order dt. 12.09.2022 had made this absolutely clear when it stated as follows:

“However, since other legal proceedings are pending between the parties, it is clarified that the observation that the observations contained in the impugned order shall not affect the merit of those proceedings.”

Neither the Hon’ble High Court’s Order nor the Supreme Court’s order placed any embargo on our client using the name, seal and office address of the AIADMK Party in his communications as the Coordinator of the Party. The meeting called for by the Headquarters announcement issued on 17.12.2022 was, in any event, not at the Party office but admittedly at a different venue i.e. the YMCA Thirumana Mandapam, Ritherton Road. As regards the High Court’s observations regarding the creation of a war-like situation, your client has conveniently overlooked the findings of the Hon’ble High Court in Paragraph 22 of the same High Court Order dt. 20.07.2022 where observations have been made against the conduct of Thiru K. Palaniswamy (described as A Partⁱ/’ in the order) by stating as follows:

“22. Be that as it may. ‘A’ Party being the responsible person and he has stated to have taken democratic stand of calling the General Council Meeting ought not to have allowed their cadres in front of the office on the same day. This aspect also clearly show that both leaders have not bothered about the law and order problem. In fact, ‘A’ Party also should

 

Nadu, -600001.

graieeprakash@yahoo.com

have taken steps atleast to instruct the cadres not to gather in front of the office. ”

In any event, the observations in the High Court order pale into insignificance in view of the Supreme Court’s order making it clear that such observations would not affect the merits of the other legal proceedings between the parties. f. Para 8: The statement that your client (i.e. supposedly, the AIADMK Party) has an interim General Secretary is denied. The so-called election of Thiru K. Palaniswamy as interim General Secretary is illegal since the very convening of the meeting held on 11.07.2022 where he claims to have been elected as interim General Secretary is invalid and under challenge in pending judicial proceedings. Indeed, the very attempt by Thiru Palaniswamy to claim any semblance of right to hold such a post is an affront to the memory of the eternal General Secretary of the Party and a deeply hurtful act towards the sentiments of the Party’s members. For the reasons stated above, it is also denied that my client is any way an “outsider” to the AIADMK. My client reiterates that he is the lawfully elected Coordinator of the AIADMK, its Treasurer and also a primary member of the Party.

20. Para 9 & 10: The statements in this paragraph are denied in their entirety, since they are again a wanton misrepresentation of the reference Order dt. 20.07.2022 and the Order dt. 12.09.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is a blatant falsehood to state that either of the said Orders upheld the validity of the purported General Council Meeting held on 11.07.2022. This has already been addressed at paragraph 4(e) hereinabove. It is also incorrect to state that our client cannot hold himself out as Coordinator of the Party when the Order dt. 02.09.2022 of the Divison Bench of the Hon’ble High Court is in vogue. As noted above, paragraph 49 of the Order dt. 02.09.2022 expressly left open the question of alleged lapse of the post of Coordinator open to be determined in the trial of the civil suits. If anything, the said order dt. 02.09.2022 holds that Thiru K. Palaniswamy has resigned his post as Joint Coordinator — therefore, it is he who has no right to represent the Party. Moreover, it is a further misrepresentation to stated that our Client’s conduct is in derogation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order dt. 30.09.2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide the said order dt. 30.09.2022, has effectively directed that there shall not be any election to the post of General Secretary till the matters are heard. Our client has hence not acted in any way that is contrary to the order.
21. Paragraphs 11 — 13: The statements in these paragraphs are all repetitions and are denied as false and untenable. They have been sufficiently addressed hereinabove and have been exposed as hollow threats. For the sake of brevity, Nadu, Chennai -600001.

graieeprakash@yahoo.com

they are not being replied to again. There is absolutely no violation of any court order by my Client. As such, it is Thiru K. Palaniswamy who is acting in a manner that is completely contrary to the PartVs byelaws and against the Party founder’s intentions. His actions threaten to wreck the unity of the entire Party and his attempt to illegally re-create and confer on himself the post of Interim General Secretary is nothing short of an affront to the eternal General Secretary of the Party. When such is the position, there is no question of our client withdrawing any notice and ceasing to use the name, address and seal of the AIADMK Party. As such your client’s notice, instigated by an unauthorized person who is desperate to engineer a hostile takeover of the Party, is devoid of any merit, and will be treated by our client as such. Our client also reserves his rights to initiate appropriate proceedings against persons who are issuing defamatory statements against him.

5. A copy of this notice is being retained in our office for the purposes of record.

For

Goutham Shivshankar & P. Rajalakshmi

Advocates