1936 Present : Poyser J.

In re AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF QUO warranto.

HARAMANIS v. SILVA.

Writ of quo warranto-Inquiry by Government Agent to an objection to the nomination of candidate-Judicial decision-Issue of writ of quo warranto to canvass decision-Local Government Ordinance, No. 11 of 1920, ss. 29 (2) and 31 (4).

The decision of a Government Agent, following an inquiry under section 31 (4) of the Local Government Ordinance, No. 11 of 1920, into an objection to the nomination of a candidate for election to an Urban District Council, may not be canvassed by the issue of. a writ of quo

was an application for a writ of quo warranto to question the validity of the election of a member of the Urban District Council of Ambalangoda. The facts are stated in the judgment.

H. V. Perera (with him G. Wikramanayake), for applicant.

T. S. Fernando, for respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

May 12, 1936. POYSER J.-

This is an application for a writ of quo warranto against Santiappu Arthur de Silva, a member of the Urban District Council of Ambalangoda. . The facts are as follows:-It was necessary under the provisions of section 32 of the Local Government Ordinance, No. 11 of 1920, to hold in the month of November or December, 1935, a general election of members of the Urban District Council of Ambalangoda.

For the purpose of such election, the Government Agent of the Southern Province did, as required by section 29 of the said Ordinance, prepare for each electoral division-

(c) a roll of persons possessing the qualifications to vote, (b) a role of persons qualified to be elected as members.

The name of one Don John Paranavidane was included in both the said rolls prepared for ward No. 6.

An objection was lodged to the inclusion of the name of this person in the said rolls, and the Government Agent, on September 16, 1935, held in accordance with section 29 (2) of the said Ordinance an inquiry into such objection.

The grounds put forward in support of the objection were: -

(1) that he had not paid all the rates and taxes due by him under the said Ordinance,

(2) that he was not possessed of immovable property of the value of not less than Rs. 5,000.

The Government Agent, after hearing evidence, overruled the objection and Don John Paranavidane's name was included in both rolls.

On November 23, 1935, nomination day, Don John Paranavidane was duly nominated as a candidate for ward No. 6. Two other persons were also nominated, viz., the respondent and one Davith Singho de Silva.

A voter then objected, under section 31 (4) of the Ordinance, to Paranavidane's nomination on the ground that he was not duly qualified as he was not possessed of immovable property of the value of Rs. 5,000.

The Government Agent after inquiry and hearing the evidence adduced, upheld the objection and rejected the nomination of Don John Paranavidane. Objection was also taken to the nomination of the respondent but this objection was overruled and as Davith Singho de Silva withdrew his nomination, the respondent was declared to be duly elected.

It was argued on behalf of the applicant that as Paranavidane's name was on the roll of persons qualified under section 27 of the Ordinance and such roll had been duly certified and he had not become disqualified by

any subsequent act, that the Government Agent had no jurisdiction to inquire into, under section 31 (4) of the Ordinance, an objection which had already been adjudicated on and in support of this argument emphasis was laid on the words of section 29 (2), viz.:-

" The Government Agent, or some person deputed by him in writing on his behalf shall attend at the time and place so indicated, and shall decide all such claims and objections in a summary manner, and such decision shall be final and conclusive ".

It was also contended on behalf of the applicant that a writ of quo warranto was the appropriate remedy, and in support of this conte