Pannersalvam moves HC on removal of Speaker

Chennai, Dec 7 (UNI) AIADMK MLA and Deputy Leader of Opposition O Paneerselvam today filed a petition in Madras High Court seeking to declare the resolution relaxing Rule 68 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (TNLA) Rules and defeat of the resolution wanting removal of Assembly Speaker R Avudaiappan as illegal and unconstitutional.

The petition is likely to come up for hearing tomorrow.

Mr Paneerselvam also sought to stay the operation of resolutions number two and three and proceedings number 18 dated August 3, 2006.

According to the petitioner, AIADMK MLA Thambidurai preferred a notice dated August 2 to the Assembly Secretary to move a resolution for removal of Speaker Avudaiappan. The Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Assembly Secretary were expected to follow mandatory provisions of Article 179 (c). Without this, the resolution for removal was defeated on August 3. The mandatory requirement was 14 days notice.

TNLA Rules framed under Article 208 of the Constitution, contemplated the manner and procedure to be followed for moving a resolution in Rule 68 and 69 of the TNLA rules.

The resolution was taken up on August 3 without a motion for leave to move it and without entering it in the list of business.

House Leader K Anbazhagan moved this unconstitutional resolution by relaxing Rule 68 of the TNLA. The Deputy Speaker too stated that the resolution was not seconded by any member and thereafter ruled that as there was nobody to second it, it was defeated by voice vote. The latter left it for House decision by voice vote and ruled persons against it were more and so it was unanimously defeated.

Mr Paneerselvam said matters of public importance could not be taken up without being entered in the list of business and without notice. This was against convention and rules of legislature. The house was conducted autocratically by the Deputy Speaker. If the resolution had been taken up after 14 days, it would have enabled the petitioner and others to participate in the discussion as per Article 179 (c) and substantiate it with records and materials.

The entire thing was done with malafide intention of seeing that the resolution was not taken up, discussed and voted on according to constitutional provisions and TNLA rules, he contended.

UNI XR AA PA MSJ BD2113