Jayawardene Ratemahamaya Of Katugampola

1930

Present: Maartensz A.J.

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

JAYAWARDENE, v. RATEMAHATMAYA OF KATUGAMPOLA.

Writ of quo warranto-Meeting under Village Communities Ordinance-Election of chairman-Procedure in counting votes-Resolution not seconded-Village Communities Ordinance, No. 9 of 1924.

Where, at a meeting of the inhabitants of a subdivision held under the Village Communities Ordinance, the resolution proposed in terms of section 16 of the Ordinance was that the Ratemahatmaya of the pattu should be the ex officio Chairman,-

Held, that the form of the resolution did not affect the validity of the decision that there should be an ex officio and not an elected chairman.

An irregularity in the method of counting the votes does not avoid an election so long as it did not affect the result.

A resolution which was put to the meeting, without being seconded, is not invalid.

APPLICATION for a writ of quo warranto to have the election of the respondents to the Village Committee of the subdivision of Dandagamuwa declared null and void.

A meeting of the inhabitants of the subdivision of Dandagamuwa was called for the purpose of electing a Village Committee according to the provisions of the Village Communities Ordinance (No. 9 of 1924). The inhabitants had arranged themselves in two camps-one composed of those in favour of having an elected chairman and the other, of those in favour of having as chairman the Ratemahatmaya of the division of which the subdivision forms part. The first motion proposed was that Mr. Roland S. Tennekoon be elected chairman. This was overruled as being against the provisions of the Ordinance. A resolution was then proposed that the Ratemahatmaya of Katugampola Hat-pattu be ex officio chairman and this was put to the meeting. Both sides represented to the presiding officer that there were many in both camps not entitled to vote, and the inhabitants were called up palata by palata and their votes taken in the presence of the headman of their respective villages. After the votes of a few villages had been taken the party in favour of an elected chairman withdrew. The method of voting by palatas was then abandoned, the resolution put afresh to those remaining, and declared carried by a majority. The second to thirty-third respondents were then elected members of the Village Committee.

F. J. Soertsz (with him Deraniyagala), in support.-The resolution that the Ratemahatmaya be ex officio chairman

should have been overruled as being against the provisions of the Village Communities Ordinance (No. 9 of 1924). If the inhabitants desire to have an elected chairman, a resolution to that effect should be first be duly proposed and carried {ibid. s. 16 (1) ). If such a resolution be duly proposed and carried, the committee is given the right of electing one of their number to be chairman (s. 16 (1)). If such a resolution be not duly proposed and carried the chief headman of the division of which the subdivision forms part becomes ex officio chairman of the committee automatically (s. 16 (3)).

The grouping of the inhabitants according to their palatas and the counting of the voters under the eye of the headman of the village in which they reside was a novel and illegal procedure and prevented them from fearlessly voting against the resolution.

The presiding officer had forewarned the Ratemahatmaya's party of his intention to count the voters palata by palata. 19 voters of the unofficial party were rejected because they were late in joining their respective groups.

The presiding officer should have continued the counting by palatas even after the unofficial party had withdrawn and should not have abandoned a strictly accurate count.

The resolution put to the inhabitants was not duly proposed (s. 6, (1) ) inasmuch as it was not seconded.

Crossette Thambiah, C.C., for first respondent.-Whether a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document