Wijesuriya V. Moonesinghe

1959 Present: Sinnetamby, J.

D. W. WIJESURIYA et al, Petitioners, and S. K. MOONESINGHE
(Chairman, Panadura Urban Council), Respondent

S. C. 150-153 of 1959-In the, matter of Applications
for Writs in the nature of Writs of Mandamus

    Mandamus-Public officer performing administrative or ministerial junctions- Duty to exercise discretion according to law-Rules for exercising such discretion -Urban Council-Conduct of business at meetings-Notice of motion given by member-Wrongful refusal by Chairman to place it on agenda paper-Remedy of member-Local Authorities (Standard By-laws) Act, No. 6 of 1952, By-laws 2 (b), 10 (b), 10 (c), 12.

    A public officer should not act arbitrarily or capriciously even where an administrative or ministerial, as distinct from a judicial or quasi-judicial, power is vested in him. He has to exercise his discretion according to law and a writ of mandamus will lie if the applicant establishes either that the public officer "did not exercise any discretion in the particular case or that he did exercise it upon some wrong principle of law or that he had been influenced by extraneous considerations which he ought not to have taken into account". By-law 10(c) embodied in the Local Authorities (Standard By-laws) Act No. 6 of 1952 and governing the conduct of business by an Urban Council is in the following terms :-

    " Before any notice of motion is placed on the agenda paper it shall be submitted to the Chairman Who if he be of opinion that it is out of order, shall order that such motion shall not be included in the agenda and shall cause the giver of the notice to be so informed. "

    Held, that a writ of mandamus would lie against the Chairman if, by an improper exercise of the discretion vested in him, he rules a motion out of order. To decide whether the Chairman acted properly in ruling that a particular motion was " out of order " it is necessary to examine the reasons given by the Chairman for doing so. The respondent to an application for any of the prerogative Writs would be Well advised to give such reasons by affidavit as otherwise he runs the risk of having the Writ allowed against him.
Held further, that By-law 2 (b) enabling a motion to be introduced with the permission of the Council does not provide an alternative remedy which can be said to be equally convenient, beneficial and effectual as -mandamus.

    APPLICATIONS for writs of mandamus against the Chairman of the Urban Council, Panadura.

    Colvin B. de Silva, with P. K. Liyanage and V. Karalasingharn, for Petitioners.

    M. M. Kumarakulasingham, for Respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

 June 30, 1959. SINNETAMBY, J.-

    Each of the applications 150 to 153 is an application for a mandate in the nature of a writ of mandamus preferred by a member of the Panadura Urban Council to which the Chairman is made Respondent.

    In each application the member complains that the Chairman unlawfully and unreasonably failed to place on the agenda certain motions of which he had given due notice. He complains that the Chairman had denied him the right to have his motions discussed at a meeting of the Council and asks for a writ to compel the Chairman to place the motions on the agenda at the monthly meeting of the Council next following the order of this Court.

    At the hearing Counsel agreed that all the applications should be taken up together and argument was consequently heard on those questions which were common to all. Thereafter, the motions detailed in each application were dealt with separately. I propose to follow a similar procedure.

    The recent history of the Panadura Urban Council, as appearing in the affidavits filed, is that the Chairman in conducting the business of the Council is confronted with a majority of members opposed to him. The opposition had previously brought a motion of No-Confidence on the Chairman and moved a resolution to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document