The truce talks between Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) founder Dr. S. Ramadoss and his son Dr Anbumani Ramadoss, who has turned his bete noire, by Madras High Court Justice Anand N. Venkatesh failed.
In an unprecedented gesture, Justice Anand Venkatesh had called the father-son duo to his chamber at 5.30 pm for a “discussion”. Later in the evening, while Anbumani appeared in person and Ramadoss spoke over the phone from his Thailapuram residence, the court dismissed the writ petition filed on behalf of the father seeking to restrain Anbumani from convening the party’s general body meeting.
Father and the founder of the party, Ramadoss, had moved the Madras High Court on Wednesday seeking the court to restrain his son Anbumani from holding the party’s general council meeting scheduled for August 9 at Mahabalipuram near Chennai. It’s “illegal and unauthorised,” the petition filed by S. Murali Shankar said. Shankar was recently appointed as the general secretary of the party by Ramadoss for his faction of the PMK.
In the petition, Ramadoss’s faction argued that an executive committee of the party had passed a resolution in July to grant more powers to the founder Ramadoss, who would become the president of the party once the term of the incumbent ends. The petition also argued that Anbumani’s term as the party president ended on May 28. It also said that Ramadoss was nominated as the new president of the party by a high-level administrative body.
“When Ramadoss, who is the competent authority, has called for the general council meeting on August 17, Anbumani convening a meeting is an illegal act and is done with an ulterior motive to confuse the cadres and office bearers in the party,” the petition argued. The petition was filed by K.S. Gopu and S. Arul, counsels on behalf of Murali Sankar, who represents Ramadoss’s faction.
On Friday, as the petition came up for hearing, Justice Anand Venkatesh decided to hold talks with Ramadoss and Anbumani to find a compromise between the two and arrive at a truce. He called for a meeting in his chamber at 5.30 pm on Friday.
“Considering the background of the case, I can dispose of this petition within ten minutes, but I don’t want to do so,” Justice Anand Venkatesh said. He asked the counsels of both Ramadoss and Anbumani if it would be possible for both of them to be present in his chamber in the evening. “I am making this request in the interest of everyone," he said.
Justice Venkatesh requested the two to be present for the meeting and said no one else, including their lawyers, would be allowed to attend.
Later, after hearing the father and son, Justice Venkatesh dismissed the petition filed by Ramadoss. “It is purely a private dispute within the party and between the founder and the first respondent. At best, it can only be a subject matter of civil proceedings where the so-called illegality in convening the general body meeting and electing the president can be questioned. A private dispute between the father and the son can never be dealt with through a writ petition. A writ petition is normally not maintainable as against a private person in the absence of a public duty component.”
