[IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL]

1954 Present: The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cohen and
Mr. L. M. D. de Silva

E. L. SENANAYAKE, Appellant, and H. M. NAVARATNE et al.,
Respondents

PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 1954

Election Petition 3 of 1952, Kandy
 

Privy Council-Election petition-Appeal to Supreme Court-Decision of Supreme Court is final --No appeal to Privy Council-Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Order in Council, 1946, ss. 81, 82, 82 A.-D, as amended by Act No. 19 of 1948.

Where a party who is dissatisfied with the determination of an election judge prefers an appeal to the Supreme Court on questions of law under section 82A of the Parliamentary Elections Order in Council, no appeal will be entertained by the Privy Council from the decision of the Supreme Court, even if the jurisdiction of the election judge to deal with the subject-matter at issue is challenged.

" The peculiar nature of the jurisdiction and the importance in the public interest of securing at an early date a final determination of the matter and the representation in Parliament of the constituency affected make it clear that it was not the intention of the Order-in-Council to create a tribunal with the ordinary incident of an appeal to the Crown. "

APPEAL front a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1953) 55 N.L.R.193.

Sir Hartley Shawcross, Q.C., with Kenneth Diplock, Q.C., R. K. Handoo and Walter Jayawardene, for the appellant.

S. Nadesan, with Sirimevan Amerasinghe and P. B. Tampoe, for the respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

June 21, 1954. [Delivered by THE LORD CHANCELLOR]-

The Supreme Court of Ceylon by judgment dated the 18th December, 1953, affirmed by a majority an Order of the election judge (de Silva P. J.) dated the 13th February, 1953, determining that the appellant's election to the House of Representatives, Ceylon, as the member for the Kandy Electoral District was void.

The election judge found that the appellant had committed two corrupt practices. The Supreme Court reversed his decision on one of them but affirmed his determination that the election was void on the ground that the appellant in breach of para. (f) of section 58 of the Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Order-in-Council 1946 had knowingly made the declaration as to election expenses required by section 70 of the Order-in-Council falsely.

Before the Supreme Court the appellant argued that the determination of the election judge ought to be reversed on two grounds: (1) that there was not evidence to support the finding of the election judge; (2) that he had no jurisdiction to hear the Petition since, although the Petition had been presented in accordance with section 83 (1) of the Order-in-Council, the application for leave to amend the Petition by alleging a false declaration as to election expenses had not been made within twenty-one days of the date on which the result of the election had been published in the Government Gazette in accordance with section 50.

The Supreme Court rejected both pleas, the second by a majority on the ground that the case fell within the proviso to section 83 (1), the original Petition (which raised other charges of corrupt practices) having been presented within the specified period of twenty-one days and the amendment raising the charge now in question having been made within twenty-eight days after the transmission to the returning officer of the allegedly false return of election expenses.

The appellant applied to this Board for leave to appeal from this decision. The respondents did not appear on the hearing of the Petition but the appellant's counsel very properly called the Board's attention to certain authorities which raised a doubt whether the Appeal could be entertained having regard to the subject-matter, the validity of a Parliamentary Election with which it dealt. Leave was granted on the 10th February, 1954, but " without prejudice to the right of the Attor