Lord Simonds.-

Their Lordships have humbly advised His Majesty that in their opinion this petition for special leave to appeal should be refused with costs. These are their reasons.

[2] The petitioner George Edmund de Silva prays for special leave to appeal from a determination of Windham J., a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon acting as Election Judge under the provisions of the Order in Council hereafter mentioned, whereby the election of the petitioner as member of the House of Representatives for the Kandy Electoral District was declared to be void for certain reasons into which it is unnecessary to enter. When their Lordships had partially considered the case on its merits, it appeared that a question of jurisdiction arose upon which they desired the assistance of counsel for the Attorney-General of Ceylon. Having now heard full argument upon the question they are satisfied that the matter in dispute is one in which the prerogative right to entertain an appeal does not exist and that the petition must be refused accordingly.

[3] By an Order in Council called the Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Order in Council, 1946, which was made under the authority of the Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council, 1946, provision was made for the election of members to serve in the House of Representatives for Ceylon. The said Order in Council after making all the usual and appropriate provisions in regard to qualification of electors and the holding of elections and other relevant matters and having defined corrupt practices and prescribed that every person who should be guilty of a corrupt practice should on conviction be liable to certain penalties, by S. 76 enacted that the election of a candidate as a member should be avoided by his conviction for any corrupt or illegal practice, and by S. 77 that the election of a candidate as a member should be declared to be void on an election petition on any of a number of grounds therein stated which might be proved to the satisfaction of the election Judge. Part V of the Order deals with election petitions. By S. 75 (1) it is provided that every election petition shall be tried by the Chief Justice or by a Judge of the Supreme Court nominated by the Chief Justice for the purpose, and by S. 75 (3) that, for the purpose of summoning or compelling the attendance of witnesses at the trial of an election petition, the election Judge shall have the same power, jurisdiction and authority as are possessed and exercised by the Judge of a District Court in the trial of a civil action and witnesses shall be sworn in the same manner as near as circumstances will admit as in the trial of such an action and shall be subject to the same penalties for the giving of false evidence. Section 81 is as follows:

"At the conclusion of the trial of an election petition the election Judge shall determine whether the member whose return or election is complained of, or any other and what person, was duly returned or elected, or whether the election was void, and shall certify such determination to the Governor. Upon such certificate being given, such determination shall be final: and the return shall be confirmed or altered or the Governor shall within one month of such determination by notice in the Government Gazette order the holding of an election in the electoral district concerned, as the case may require, in accordance with such certificate."

[4] By S. 82 (1) the election Judge was also required to report in writing to the Governor whether any corrupt or illegal practice had or had not been committed by or with the knowledge and consent of any candidate at the election or by his agent, and by S. 82 (3) when an election Judge reports that a corrupt or illegal practice has been committed by any person, that person shall be subject to the same incapacities as if at the date of the said report he had been convicted of that practice.

[5] At an election held on 23rd August 1947, for the election of a membe