Chennai: Contending that the Tamizhaga Murpokku Makkal Katchi, which is a registered political party, was not invited to the all party meeting held pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court in Cauvery water dispute case, the party has approached the Madras high court to direct the state government to frame necessary rules for inviting participants to all party meeting to be called in future.
Justice K.Ravichandra Baabu, before wh-om the petition filed by Tamizhaga Murpokku Makkal Katchi represented by its secretary V.Vijayakumar came up for hearing, ordered notice, returnable by four weeks, to the state government.
According to petitioner, the petitioner party had expressed its views subsequent to the Supreme Court verdict in the Cauvery water dispute case on February 16, 2018. It welcomed the verdict with certain reservations in respect of reducing the quantum of water released to Tamil Nadu. Subsequent to the verdict, the Tamil Nadu government called for an all party meeting to discuss the future course of action on the judgment on February 22 at the secretariat. The petitioner party was eagerly waiting to participate and to express its views. But, there was no invitation to participate. Who were all invited by the state government and how the invitations to the said meeting were distributed was kept as a guarded secret. Later the petitioner party learnt that all party meeting was held at the Secretariat on February 22 in which representatives of about 35 political parties and 14 farmers associations took part in it, the petitioner added.
The petitioner said the petitioner party surprised to note that the state government had invited the participants without any norms and criteria. Most of the parties which have not contested any election in the recent past have been invited. Religious leaders were also invited for the meeting. Therefore, the petitioner party sent a representation to the state government to furnish details relating to norms and procedures adopted by it to invite the participants. But, there was no response, the petitioner added.
