Present: Drieberg J.

In the Matter of an Application for a Writ of quo warranto.

WIJEYRATNE v. OBEYESEKERE.

    Writ of quo warranto-Election of Village Committees-Notice of adjourned meeting-Legal defect-Motives of applicant-Village Communities Ordinance, No. 9 of 1924, s. 10 (2).

Where a meeting, which had been duly summoned for the election of a Village Committee under the Village Communities Ordinance, No. 9 of 1924, was adjourned by the presiding officer, who did not at the time of adjournment notify the time and place of the adjourned meeting as required by section 10 (2) of the Ordinance,-

Held, that the election could not be set aside on the ground of a legal defect, unless the Court was satisfied that the application was a bona fide one and was directed to relive a real grievance.

APPLICATION by way of quo warranto to set aside the election of a Committee for the village of Kosgoda held under the Village Communities Ordinance, No. 9 of 1924.

The application was made on the ground that the presiding officer in adjourning a previous meeting had not announced, as required by section 10 (2) of the Ordinance, the date of the adjourned meeting.

H. V. Perera (with Deraniyagala), for the respondent.-We object to the writ being made absolute on the following grounds :-

(1) Lack of bona fides.

(2) Delay.

(3) Acquiescence of the applicant in the proceedings.

This application is brought by the applicant in bad faith because his party did not get in. His motives are bad, and a Court will not encourage an application in a writ in these circumstances. (Short on Mandamus, p. 251.)

He has delayed to come to court. Delay is a circumstance that must be taken into consideration against the accused. (Short on Mandamus, p. 250.)

The applicant was present at the proceedings and took part in them. He did not object to the proceedings which he seeks to attack.

He acquiesced in them. He cannot now come to Court and say they are bad when he has not objected to them there. This action is being instigated by another, and the applicant is seeking to use the powers of the Court to satisfy his injured feeling.

 Basnayake, for petitioner.-The question of delay cannot be to arise in this case Even three months cannot be said  to be delay in these circumstances. Some of the applicant's affidavits are in the very month of the elections. We cannot ask for a writ of quo warranto until the respondents are in office. (The King v. Whitivell.1[1 Irvin Rep. vol. 5, p 85.])

The question of bona fides should be taken into consideration. If the requirements of the law are satisfied, the bona fides (Rex v. Benny2[2 1 Bar. & Ad. 684. ]) of the relator need not be considered.

The word "acquiescence " does not occur in Short on Mandamus in relation to writs of this nature. " Concurrence " is the word he uses. A person present at an election cannot be said to concur in it. He may vote against a particular candidate who is elected and he cannot be said to have concurred in his election. (Rex v. Huxam,3[3 4 Jurist 1133. ] The King v. Clarke4[1 East 38.] The King v. Symmons,5[ 5 4 T. R. 223.] The King v. Trevenen,6[6  2 Bar. & Ad. (1818-1819), p. 339.]) The King v. Stewart,7[ 3 East 213.] The King v. Smith.8[ 8 3T.R. 573.]

October 12, 1928. DRIEBERG J.-

The petitioner asks that the election of a Committee for the village of Kosgoda held under the Village Communities Ordinance, No. 9 of 1924, on April 28, 1928, be declared null and void.

The meeting was first held on March 3, 1928. This was not one held in the ordinary course. I am informed by Mr. Perera that the previous election, which was for a Committee to hold office from July, 1927, was declared void by the Supreme Court in the case reported in 29 N. L. R. 129. It is only necessary to refer to this, for it would appear from it that the Committee elected at this election would enter on office immediately and not on Jul