Cumarasinghe V. Abeyratne

1937   Present: Hearne J
.
CUMARASINGHE v. ABEYRATNE.

 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR
A WRIT OF QUO warranto.

Writ of quo warranto-Election of Village Committee-Objection to qualification of member on ground of age-Objection overruled by presiding officer- Judicial functions-No writ to canvass decision-Ordinance No. 9 of-1924, s. 18 (a).

Where at an election for a Village Committee objection was taken that the respondent was disqualified to be elected on the ground that he was under 25 years of age and the presiding officer overruled the objection under section 25 of the Village Communities Ordinance-

Held, that a writ of quo warranto would not lie to canvass the decision of the presiding officer as he was exercising functions of a judicial character.

In re Writ of quo warranto against S. A. de Silva (15 C. L. Rec. 206) followed.

Quaere, whether, if the application had been for a declaration that the, respondent, notwithstanding his election, is disqualified from holding office, the writ would lie.

THIS was an application for a writ of quo warranto to have the election of the respondent as a member of a village committee set aside on the ground that he was disqualified under section 18 (a) of Ordinance No. 9 of 1924 from being elected. At the election the presiding officer overruled the objection. The applicant filed the birth certificate of the respondent showing that he was 21 years of age.

R. C. Fonseka, for petitioner.-Section 18 (a) of the Village Communities Ordinance, No. 9 of 1924, disqualifies any person who is under 25 years of age from being elected to a village committee. Respondent's certificate of birth shows he is 21. The presiding officer did not hold a full and sufficient inquiry.

B. H. Aluwihare (with him Curtis), for respondent.-The decision of the presiding officer is " final and conclusive "-section 25 of Ordinance No. 9 of 1924. The same section empowers the presiding officer to hold an inquiry then and there as he may " deem requisite ". The inquiry held by him must be presumed to be a proper and sufficient one in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

In deciding on the qualification of candidates the presiding officer was acting in a judicial character and not in a ministerial character. His decision in that character, though erroneous, cannot be questioned by quo warranto. (Shortt on Mandamus, p. 132; In re quo warranto on Chair-man, Local Board, Matara[1 4 C. I. Rec. 81.] In re Writ of quo warranto on S. A. de Silva [ 2 15 C. L. Rec. 206.])

Cur. adv. vult.

 September 18, 1937. HEARNE J.-

On June 5, 1937, a meeting was held in the Asgiriya Udasiya. pattu division of Matale District in order to elect a village committee in terms of Ordinance No. 9 of 1924. The applicant and the respondent were candidates and the latter was elected.

The applicant objected to the election of the respondent on the ground that he was disqualified under section 18 (a) of the Ordinance but the presiding officer, the Government Agent, overruled the objection. The respondent's birth certificate has been filed. He is 21 years of age. Under section 18 (a) a person shall be disqualified to be elected unless he is over 25 years of age. There is, therefore, now no question that the respondent's age disqualified him from being elected.

The applicant prayed for the issue of a writ of quo warranto on the respondent who entered an appearance through Counsel to show cause why the application should not be allowed.

Section 25 (1) and (2) of the relevant Ordinance is as follows : -

(1) " If at any meeting any question shall be raised as to the right of any person to vote or to be elected as member of a committee the Government Agent shall then and there make such inquiry as he may deem requisite and decide whether or not such person has the right to vote or to be elected.

(2) " Such decision shall be final and conclusive ".

In a case deali

Click Here to Read the rest of this document