In Re Gunathilake

 

1941     Present: Keuneman J.

 

In re GUNATHILAKE.

APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF Quo WARRANTO

 

Village Communities Ordinance (Cap. 198), s. 22-Failure to elect members- Mistake with regard to the date of meeting-Nomination by Executive Committee of Local Administration.

 

The words "fail to elect" in section 22 of the Village Communities Ordinance must be interpreted to mean as " do not elect". They do not imply wilful failure. The relevant words of the section are as follows: - Where for any reason the voters of all or any of the wards of a village area fail . . . . to elect any member on the date fixed for the meeting or any adjourned meeting of the voters, for the purposes of a general election or a by-election it shall be lawful for the Executive Committee to nominate such number of duly qualified persons as may be necessary to constitute or complete the Village Committee.

 

T HIS was an application for a writ of quo-warranto.

 

H. W. Thambiah, for the petitioner. R. C. de Fonseka, for respondents.

 

H. H. Basnayake, C.C., for Attorney-General on notice.

 

Cur. adv. vult

 

March 25, 1941. KEUNEMAN J.-

 

Both these applications were heard together and can be decided together.

 

The facts are as follows : -

 

The petitioner is a resident of the pattu in question and is the sitting member for one of the wards, and was a candidate for the office of Chair­man of the Committee in question.

 

The Assistant Government Agent, Matale, originally issued a notice intimating that the election of members for four wards of the village area in respect of which there were contests would take place on May 9, 1940.

 

It may be noted that both the petitioner and Mr. Gunathilake, the Chair­man, had been elected to their respective wards without any contest.

 

No further notice issued from the Assistant Government Agent as regards the date, but about the 3rd or 4th of May the Headman made it known that the election would be held on the 6th of May and not on the 9th. It seems fairly clear that this was due to a mistake on the part of the officer appointed to act as Presiding Officer.

 

This officer arrived on the 6th of May and purported hold an election of members to represent the four wards I have mentioned. It is clear that these elections were invalid, as due notice had not been given and the mistake was realized very early. On the 7th or 8th of May, the Headman again announced that the elections held on the 6th were invalid, and that the meeting would again be held on the 9th of May as originally noticed. On the 9th of May, the candidates and their supporters arrived at the

 

place

Click Here to Read the rest of this document