Back
APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS ON GOVERNMENT AGENT NORTHERN PROVINCE.
NLR28V323
1927 Present: Dalton J.
Application for a Writ of Mandamus on the GOVERNMENT
Agent, Northern Province.
Village Communities Ordinance-Change of venue without written notice-Validity
of election-Mandamus-Ordinance No. 9 of 1924. ss. 9 and 10 (1).
Where, under the Village Communities Ordinance, a meeting was held for the
election of a Village Committee and the requirements of the Ordinance,
applicable to such meeting, as regards written notice within the proper time of
the place of meeting, were not complied with,-
Held, that the election was void.
A write of mandamus would lie in such a case to question the validity of the
election.
APPLICATION for a writ of mandamus on the Government Agent
of the Northern Province directing him to convene a meeting for the election of
a Village Committee for the Tellippalai subdivision of the Province in
conformity with the requirements of sections 9 and 10 (1) of Ordinance No. 9 of
1924. It appeared that the Government Agent had called a meeting of the male
inhabitants of the subdivision to be held at the Court of the Village Committee
on May 14 for the purpose of electing a new committee in conformity with the
requirements of Ordinance No. 9 of 1924. The printed notice of the meeting was
dated April 9, and was posted in such places as were, in the opinion of the
Government Agent, best calculated to give publicity. The meeting was also
advertised by beat' of tom-tom. On May 7, the Government Agent, having formed
the opinion that the Court of the Village Committee would not be spacious enough
to hold the people likely to attend the election, made order that the election
should be held at the Maha Jana English School, which was half a mile from the
originally selected venue. This change was published by beat of tom-tom, but to
written notices thereof were affixed in the subdivision. On May J4th the
election was held, and the present application was made to have the election
declared void on the ground that the requirements of section 10 (1) of the
Ordinance were peremptory so far as the place and time of the election were
concerned.
H. V. Perera (with S. Rajaratnam), in support.
Gnanapragasam, for respondents.
Mervyn Fonseka, C.C., for Government Agent, Northern Province.
March 30, 1927. DALTON J.-
This application was argued before me on December 17, 1926, the parties then
before me being the petitioner and the Government Agent. The petitioner moves
for a writ of mandamus on the Government Agent of the Northern Province,
directing him to convene and hold a meeting for the election of a Village
Committee for the Tellippalai subdivision of the Province, in conformity with
the requirements of sections 9 and 10 (1) of Ordinance No. 9 of 1924.
It does not appear from the proceedings prior to December 17 that any order nisi
has been made, or in fact that the English practice governing these proceedings
is followed here. All the petitioner has asked for in this petition is that a
writ of mandamus do issue, and on July 20 last this Court ordered that notice
thereof be served upon the respondent.
On December 17 argument at considerable length was heard on behalf of both these
parties, it being contended for the petitioner that the election already held
was void, and it being argued on the other side that even if the election was
void (which was not conceded) the remedy of the petitioner was by quo
warranto and not by mandamus.
A Village Committee of twenty-nine members was in fact elected on May 14 last,
and a chairman was appointed. It was clear therefore that, assuming the
petitioner was successful, and order made that the writ do issue, the rights of
parties would be affected who had had no opportunity of being heard. It has been
laid down in Rex v. Bankes 1 that in a rule for a
mandamus to elect a mayor, a subsisting mayor de facto must always be a party.
The pr
