1930 Present : Lyall Grant J.

APPUHAMY v. HAY.

247-M. C. Kandy, 2,786.

Municipal Councillor-Nominated member- Interest in contract-Municipal Councils Ordinance, No. 6 of 1910, s. 33.

Section 33 of the Municipal Councils Ordinance, which penalizes a Councillor who is concerned or interested in a contract made with the Council, applies to a nominated member.

APPEAL from an order of the Police Magistrate of Kandy. A charge was laid before the Magistrate that the accused, being a member of the Municipal Council of Kandy, was concerned or interested, otherwise than as a shareholder in a joint stock company, in a contract made with the Municipal Council of Kandy and had thereby committed an offence punishable under section 33 of Ordinance No. 6 of 1910.

When the complainant asked for summons, accused was represented by counsel who took objection to the issue of summons on the ground that the section applied only to elected members. The Magistrate upheld the objection and refused process. The complainant appealed.

L. A. Rajapakse, for complainant, appellant.-Section 33 is a general section, and clearly applies to nominated as well as to elected Councillors. Admittedly many of the earlier sections apply only to elected members, but there is no such limitation in section 33. In interpreting statutes, a Court will abide by the plain meaning of the words, unless such an interpretation leads to absurdity. (Coe v. Lawrence [1 1 E. and B.516.]; see also Maxwell on the Interpretations of Statutes, pp. 3-7.) Moreover, the intention of the legislature in enacting section 33 is clear. Its object is to prevent a conflict between interest and duty which would inevitably arise if Councillors, elected or nominated, were

permitted to enter into private contracts with the Council. The words " any Councillor" were introduced into section 33 in order to give the section the widest possible application.

Hayley, K.C. (with him E.F.N. Gratiaen) for accused, respondent.-With regard to the interpretation of the word " any ", the generality may be restricted by the subject-matter of the context. (London Tobaccomakers' Co. v. Woodroffe, [1 7 B. and C. 838, at p. 856.] In re Bagster [2 53 L. J. Ch. 124] Poulters Company v. Phillips. [3 Bing N. C. 314.] ) Section 33 must be read with section 29 which deals with the disqualifications of Councillors " after election ", and which has no application to nominated members. So too it is clear from the context that sections 30, 31, and 32 are restricted to elected members. The only section which deals with the qualifications of nominated members is section 9 (i). Every section which has application to nominated members expressly mentions them (see sections 34 and 35). Where an elected member is disqualified under section 29 and thereby incurs a penalty under section 33, section 30 provides that he shall ipso facto cease to be a Councillor. Can the legislature have intended a nominated member, who has incurred a penalty under section 33, to continue in office notwithstanding that fact ?

June 18, 1930. LYALL GRANT J.-

This is an appeal from an order of the Police Magistrate of Kandy refusing process. The complaint laid was that a certain councillor of the Municipal Council of Kandy was concerned or interested, otherwise than as a shareholder in a joint stock company, in a contract made with the Municipal Council of Kandy . . . ., whereby he has committed an offence punishable under section 33 of Ordinance No. 6 of 1910, the Municipal Councils Ordinance.


When the complainant asked for the issue of summons, the accused was represented and put forward certain objections. The objection to the issue of summons was taken on the ground that this section only applies to elected members and not to nominated members of the Council. It appears to be common ground that Dr. Hay, the member, in question, is a nominated member and not an elected member. Th