George contests maintainability of KC(M) petition

Questions another KC(M) leader Thomas Unniyadan seeking his disqualification from the Assembly.

September 02, 2015 02:56 am | Updated March 28, 2016 02:48 pm IST - Thiruvananthapuram

Rebel Kerala Congress (M) legislator P.C. George on Tuesday questioned the maintainability of the petition filed by Government Chief Whip and another KC(M) leader Thomas Unniyadan seeking his disqualification from the Assembly, besides alleging that the opinion submitted by party chairman and Law Minister K.M. Mani in the matter amounted to an attempt to influence Speaker N. Sakhtan.

In view of the opinions expressed by a person of the stature of Mr. Mani, who “is well versed in law,” Mr. George sought time to “engage a legal practitioner as intricate questions of procedure under the Constitution (might) arise for consideration of the issue.”

Mr. George appears to have adopted the strategy of picking holes on procedures adopted by the Legislature Secretariat during his deposition before the Speaker on the issue of his disqualification as a legislator, some thing which his detractors depicted as a dilatory tactic. At one level, the acerbic legislator wanted the Speaker to decide on the objections he had raised on the maintainability of Mr. Unniyadan’s petition before going into the merits of the case. A couple of weeks ago, Mr. George had contended that Mr. Unniyadan’s petition was not in order because it did not conform to the prescribed norms such as attesting his signature on all pages of the petition.

At another level, he questioned the Speaker’s reference to Mr. Mani as “the second opposite party” in the notice sent to him seeking his comments on Mr. Mani’s opinion. “In the petition filed by Mr. Unniyadan, there is no second opposite party at all. There is only one opposite party, which is the present petitioner. There is no provision under the rules to entertain opinions from strangers on a petition filed by a member, purportedly under the rules framed by the Assembly.”

Mr. George contended that he was not obliged to give his comments on an unsubstantiated opinion. The rules do not permit a second opinion by a stranger and since it was irregular it had prejudiced his position. Talking to media persons later, Mr. George said he would appear with his counsel Ramkumar on September 15, the date fixed for the next hearing. Mr. Unniyadan did not turn up for the hearing, but the fresh dates were fixed after consultations.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.