1939     Present: Hearne J.

DE SILVA v. SCHOKMAN.

In re APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF Mandamus ON THE MAYOR OF COLOMBO.

Municipal Council of Colombo-Consideration of special committee's report at Council's meeting-Report placed on the Order of the Day-Right of Mayor to prevent discussion-Writ of Mandamus.

Where the respondent, the Mayor of the Municipal Council of Colombo, who was presiding over a meeting of the Council, refused to allow the members of the Council to discuss the report of a special committee of the Council, appointed under section 11 of the Municipal Councils Ordi­nance, which was listed in the " Orders of the Day" for consideration by the Council,-

Held, that the respondent had no right to prevent discussion of a matter that was properly before the meeting.

THIS was an application for a Writ of Mandamus on the respondent, the Mayor of Colombo.

H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him Colvin R. de Silva and S. Alles), for the petitioner.-Under section 11 of Cap. 194, the ultimate destination of a report of a special committee is the Council. The respondent acted wrongly in rejecting the report and refusing to place it before the Council for consideration.

The main point for consideration is whether, in law, the Chairman had any discretion vested in him in preventing the report to be discussed. If he had any discretion, whether he exercised it rightly, or wrongly, the present application would fail. The position, however, is that the Chairman had no option in the matter at all. Section 11 (2) of Cap. 194 shows the purpose for which the report of the special committee is referred to the Council, namely, so that it may be finally considered by the Council. The provisions of section 11 (2) are further elaborated by by-law 31 (Chapter 2) and by-law 3 (Chapter 3). The report of the committee is to be considered by the Council and not to be judged by anybody else but the Council.

[HEARNE J.-Suppose the matter contained in the report is defamatory and irrelevant?]

The Chairman's first duty is to the Council. If there is anything defamatory, the public can be excluded under by-law 2 (Chapter 2). Further, a member would utter a defamatory statement at his own risk.

[HEARNE J.-Has the Chairman no control over the debate?] He has, but the act in question was not one of controlling any business; It was a way of preventing business being done.

The Chairman always derives his authority from the assembly. The report has to be considered by the Council. Until the Council considers it, the special committee continues to live (section 11). So far as the report is concerned, the Chairman is only a channel of communication, 

and he has to submit the report to the Council. In the course of the report from the special committee to the Council, the Chairman's function is purely of a ministerial nature-The King v. Bishop of Sarum [1 (1916) 1 K. B. 466].

N. E. Weerasooria, K.C. (with him E. B. Wikremanayake and V. F. Gunaratne), for the respondent.-The Mayor was under no legal duty to do what is asked for in the present app