1928 Present: Drieberg J.

WEERASURIYA v. SENEVIRATNE.

310-P. C. Matara, 45,262.

Local Government-Member of Urban District Council-Auction of leases-Bid on behalf of another-Concern in contract-Ordinance No. 11 of 1920, s. 237 (1).

Where, at a public auction, at which an Urban District Council put up for competition the lease of certain blocks of land, a member of the Council, with the permission of the Chairman, bid for and obtained a lease on behalf of another person, whose name was given as that of the purchaser,-

Held, that under the circumstance!! the member was not " concerned in a contract with the Council " within the meaning of section 237 (1) of the Local Government Ordinance.

THE appellant, a member of the Urban District Council of Matara, was convicted of an offence under section 237 of the Local Government Ordinance, No. 11 of 1920, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20. The section penalizes any member, officer, or servant of the Council " who shall be either directly or indirectly concerned in any contract or work made with or executed for the Council." It appears that the Urban District Council, having resolved to lease certain blocks of land which it owned, put them up for public auction. The sale was carried out by a Sub-Committee consisting of the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman, Mr. W. Gooneratne, and the appellant. For a certain lot, the appellant, with the permission of the Chairman, bid Rs. 10 on behalf of one D. A. Ranaweera. As there was no advance on the bid, it was accepted and the name of Ranaweera was entered as the purchaser. The learned Police Magistrate convicted the appellant.

Hayley, K.C. (with Weerasooriya), for accused, appellant.-There ( is no completed contract, only an auction to sell a right. The offender must be " concerned " or " interested in " the contract. An interest in the contractor is no interest in the contract. A thing may be interesting to a person, and yet he may not be " interested in."

This is a penal provision and must be strictly construed. The benefit of any doubts must be given to the accused. (See Everett v. Griffiths 1 and Ford v. Newth, 2)

H. V. Perera (with Basnayake), for respondent.- A completed contract is not necessary. Here is a contract. A valid offer and an acceptance. Ratification of the contract does not enter into the question. What the provision seeks to prevent is that conflict of interest and duty. The " interest in the contract " and the duty to the Council. A member cannot appear in two roles. His primary duty is to look after the affairs of the Council. This should not be allowed to clash with his interest in contracts with the Council. Local Government should be pure, and even the semblance o£ suspicion should be avoided.

Counsel cited the following authorities:- Barnach v. Clark,3 Todd v. Robinson,4 England v. Inglis,5 Hyde v. Hosford,6 Nutton v. Wilson.7

July 12, 1928. DRIEBERG J.-

The appellant, a member of the Urban District Council of Matara, was convicted of an offence under section 237 of the Local Government Ordinance, No. 11 of 1920, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. By this section any member, officer, or servant of any District Council who " shall be either directly or indirectly concerned in any contract or work made with or executed for the Council "is liable to a fine not exceeding Rs. 500 and becomes incapable of sitting as a member of the Council or holding any office or employment under the Ordinance.

The Urban District Council of Matara resolved to lease certain blocks of land which it owned. Each lease was to be for a term of 33 years, and the lessee was obliged to erect a building approved by the Council to cost Rs. 3,000. The Council put up to auction the right to the leases, the amount so paid being in the nature of a premium. The sale was carried out by a Sub-Committee consisting of the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman, Mr. W. Gooneratne and