In the matter of the Application for a writ of quo warranto declare the Election of DANISTER PERERA as Member of the Municipal Council of Galle null and void.

Present: Mr. Justice Wendt and Mr. Justice. Wood Renton.

In the matter of the Application for a writ of quo warranto
declare the Election of DANISTER PERERA as Member
of the Municipal Council of Galle null and void.

Writ of quo warranto-Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court-Re-insertion of name of candidate after disqualification has ceased-Permanent disqualification-" Knowingly "-Contracts with the Municipal Council-Power of Chairman-Municipal Councils' Ordinance (Ordinance No. 7 of 1887), ss. 22, 3. 30, 4, 43, 47, and 131- Ordinance No. 1 of 1889, s. 46-Ordinance No. 1 of 1896, s. 12.

The Supreme Court has power under section 46 of the Courts Ordinance (No. 1 of 1889) to issue a mandate in the nature of quo warranto.

A candidate whose name has been erased from the list of qualified Councillors on account of a disqualifying contract is entitled, on his getting rid of such contract, to have his name reinstated in the list.

Section 34 of Ordinance No. 7 of 1887 enacts that-" Any person who shall knowingly accept, and shall enter upon, and act in, the office of councillor without possessing the necessary qualifications or being disqualified as provided in this Ordinance, and any councillor who shall knowingly continue to act as such after he shall have ceased to possess the necessary qualifications, shall, notwithstanding that their names appear in the lists of persons entitled to be elected, be liable to a penalty not exceeding one thousand rupees, and shall for ever be disqualified from being elected a councillor or from voting at any election."

Held, that this section has no application where the statutory disqualification is not clear on the face of the facts, but has had to be established by elaborate argument in judicial proceedings.

APPLICATION for a writ of quo warranto declare the election of Danister Perera as Member of the Municipal Council Galle, null and void.

The facts are fully set out in the judgment of Wood Renton J.

W. Pereira, K.C. (A. St. V. Jayewardene with him), for applicant.

Dornhorst, K.C. (Bawa with him), for respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

23rd March, 1906. WOOD RENTON J.-

This is a petition for a mandate in the nature of a quo warranto with a view to vacate the election of Mr. Edward Danister Perera, the respondent, as Member of the Galupiyadda Ward of the. Municipality of Galle. Mr. Perera was elected Coucillor for that ward on 4th December last by 24 votes as against 23 polled by

Mr. Thomas de Silva Amarasuriya, the present petitioner. Several legal questions of considerable interest and importance are involved in this case. (I.) Has the Supreme Court of the Colony power to issue mandates in the nature of a quo warranto ? In previous proceedings closely connected with this very election \In the matter of the election of a Councillor for the Galupiyadda Ward of the Galle Municipality(1)] I have myself already answered this question in the affirmative. But the respondent has now properly raised it again before a Bench of two Judges. After careful re-consideration I adhere to my former opinion. It is true that at-and long before -the time of the acquisition of this Colony by Great Britain the writ of quo warranto had fallen into disuse in England, and had been superseded in practice by an information in the nature of quo warranto which was and is regulated by legislative enactment. But quo warranto was undoubtedly a high prerogative writ at Common Law. The power to issue it has never even in England been taken away from the Crown by statute. Indeed the modern information itself is not the creature of statute, although it has been moulded by statute [see Darley v. Rex(2)]; and if the special statutory procedure now in use were set aside, the old writ would, I think, still be available. A high p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document