Davit Perera V. Assistant Government agent, Kalutara

1930 Present : Maartensz A.J.

In the Matter of an Application for a Writ of Mandamus on the Assistant
Government Agent, Kalutara.

DAVIT PERERA v. ASSISTANT
GOVERNMENT AGENT,
KALUTARA.

Village Committee-Meeting of inhabitants- Power of Government Agent to adjourn meeting-Another time and place on the same day-Village Communities Ordinance, No. 9 of 1924, s. 10 (2).

The power given to a Government Agent, under section 10, sub-section (2), of the Village Communities Ordinance to adjourn a meeting held for the purpose of electing a Village Committee, entitles him to adjourn the meeting to another time and place on the same day.

THIS was an application for a declaration that the election of the second to twenty-eighth respondents as members of the Village Committee for the subdivision of Gangaboda was void and for a mandamus on the Assistant Government Agent of Kalutara, directing him to hold a fresh election. The principal ground on which the election of the committee was attacked was that the meeting was held at a place other than that fixed in the notice given of the meeting. It appears that the meeting commenced at the Gansabhawa Court, the appointed place. When the first resolution was passed, the

Government Agent adjourned the meeting to the premises of the Resthouse for 3.30 P.M., after notice to those present.

Weerasooria (with Nadarajah), for applicant.-The election is void. The notice convening the meeting fixed a certain time and place ; the meeting was in fact held at a different time and place ; the provisions of sections 8, 9, and 10 (I) are imperative ; the Presiding Officer purported to act under section 10 (2). The word "adjourn" in sub-section (2) must be taken as used in the popular sense of deferring or postponing the meeting to a future day. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, p. 40 (2nd ed.); Fitzgerald's Case1 ; Wood-Renton's Encyclopaedia, p. 168 ; derivation in Imperial Dictionary. The non-observance of an imperative provision makes the election void (Writ of Mandamus on Government Agent, Northern Province,'1 also Miller & Co. v. Government Agent, Province of Uva 3). There were also a number of irregularities which vitiated the election ; the principles of conducting an election have been ignored. There is no provision in the Ordinance re details, if so the ordinary principles would apply (Rambukwelle v. De Silva 4 ). The decision in Kartigesu v. Government Agent, Northern Province 5 is in conflict with Writ of Mandamus on Government Agent, Northern Province (supra).

Crossette Thambiah, C.C., for first respondent.-The remedy sought is inappropriate. The office is de facto full and the application, if any, should have been by way of an information in the nature of quo warrantor 6 The first respondent having carried out the statutory duty imposed on him, no mandamus can lie." In any event, the writ is discretionary and will not issue where' the officer concerned has acted bona fide and in the best exercise of his discretion, even though upon an erroneous construction of the law or in one way rather than in another.8

Foot notes

1 L. R. Q.B. 10.
2 28 N. L. R. 323.
3 30 N. L. R. 6.
4 26 A. I. R. 231
5 31 N.L.R. 141.
6 31 N. L. R. 141 ; 7 T.L.R.  94 : 5 T. L. R. 46.
7 28 N. L. R. 417.
8 7 T. L. R. 94 ; 29 N. L. R. 5 31 N.L.R. 141. 389 ; 30 N. L. R. 81 ; 26 N. L. R. 211.

The procedure adopted by the first respondent in regard to the conduct of this meeting was not ultra vires. The plain words of section 10 (2) suffice. The Chairman of a meeting has prima facie authority to decide all emergent questions (Blackwell on The Law of Meetings, pp. 14 ,35 et seq. ; In re Indian Zoedone Co.1 ). The adjournment was the act of the Chairman and not of the meeting. The popular meaning of the word " adjourn " need not govern the discretion vested in a Chairman. Even popularly, Courts of law and meetings of legislativ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document