R.A.Piyasena, V. A.J.M. De Silva, Et Al

1951 Present: Nagalingam S.P.J.

R. A. PIYASENA, Petitioner, and A. J. M. DE SILVA et al.,
Respondents

S. C. 97.-IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF
Quo WARRANTO ON ANTHONY J. M. DE SILVA, MEMBER
FOR WARD NO. 2, HATTON-DICKOYA URBAN COUNCIL

Quo Warranto-Urban Council-Election to ward-" General personation "-Meaning of expression-Inspection of ballot papers-Power of Court to order it-Voter- " Error in description "-Local Authorities Elections Ordinance, ss. 53, 68.

Where, in an election to a ward of an Urban Council, the majority of the successful candidate was small, and the number of cases of personation was larger than the majority and consisted of votes in favour of the successful candidate-

Held, that the election was void on the ground of general personation.

Held, further, (i) that the Court has power to order an inspection of ballot papers not only during the six months mentioned in the proviso to Clause 4 of section 68 of the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance, but also at any time thereafter whenever it becomes necessary to do so in the interests of justice.

(ii) that the terms of section 53 of the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance do not go so far as to permit a Presiding Officer to allow a man to vote when his name is entered in the electoral lists as that of a woman.

THIS was an application for a writ of quo warranto to set aside an election to a ward of the Hatton-Dickoya Urban Council.

H. V. Perera, K.C., with C. S. Barr Kumarukulasinghe, M. M. Kumarakulasingham and G. C. Niles, for the petitioner.

R. L. Pereira, K. C., with A. L. Jayasuriya, A. B. Perera, S. P. Wijewickrema and W. D. Gunasekera, for the 1st respondent.

D. Jansze, Crown Counsel, for the 2nd respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

December 19, 1951. NAGALINGAM S.P.J.-

The election of the 1st respondent, Anthony J. M. de Silva, as member for ward No. 2 of the Hatton-Dickoya Urban Council is being challenged in these proceedings by the petitioner who is a registered voter for the ward.

The ground upon which the election has been challenged is that certain voters who were not entitled to vote were permitted by the Presiding Officer to cast their votes in spite of objection and that in consequence thereof was the alleged majority secured by which the 1st respondent was declared duly elected. There were six voters to whose voting objections were specifically formulated. These, six voters are said to

have voted in place of the following, whose names appear on the electoral list: (1) Mrs. V. Ponnammah, (2) V. Veeraputhiram, (3) U. M. Mahamani, (4) R. Gunawardena, (5) Meera Saibo Hyder Ali, and (6) W. Odiris Silva.

[After holding on the evidence that there had been impersonations in. respect of Mrs. Ponnammah, Veeraputhiram, Mahamani and Odiris Silva, but not in respect of Meera Saibo Hyder Ali, His Lordship continued :-]

The last voter to whom objection has been taken is R. Gunawardena. In the lists, against the name of R. Gunawardena there is the further description indicating that the name is that of a female by the insertion against the name of the word "Miss"; and in a column headed "Sex" the letter F also is placed opposite the name indicating again that the voter is a female. The voter who claimed to be R. Gunawardena was. a male ; he gave evidence and stated that his sex had been wrongly described but that he himself was the person whose name was registered as a voter. In his evidence, however, he admitted in express words that he had a sister by the name of R. Gunawardena. In order to whittle down this evidence the uncle of the witness, one Munaweera was called by the 1st respondent, and he denied that the witness R Gunawardena had a sister by the name of Gunawardena at all, much, less one by the name of R. Gunawardena. He categorically stated: that there were three children in the family, two males and one female, the female going by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document