1962 Present: Weerasooriya, S. P. J.       
    
A. P. K. PATHIRANA, Petitioner, and A. S. GOONESEKERA
(Chairman, Village Committee, Otara Palata) et al., Respondents

S. C. 176-Application for a Writ of Mandamus on the  Chairman, V. C., Otara Palata

Local Government Service-Member thereof employed under a local authority-Interdiction by the Local Government Service Commission--Liability of the local authority to pay emoluments during the period of interdiction-Right of interdicted person to apply for a writ, of mandamus-Local Government Service Ordinance (Cap. 264), 88. 11 (1) (c}, 14 (1), 15, 23(1), 27, 67 (1)-Local Government Service Regulations, 1947, Regulation 51-Scope of Mandamus.

          Where a member of the Local Government Service who has been appointed to a post, in the service of a local authority is interdicted by the Local Government Service Commission while in the service of that local authority, paragraph (iv) of Regulation 51 of the Local Government Service Regulations of 1947, read with section 23(1) of the Local Government Service Ordinance, renders the local authority liable to pay out of its funds one hall (at least) of' his emoluments during his interdiction. In such a case, the duties imposed on the local authority, which is a public body, are of a public character and, therefore, liable to be enforced by Mandamus, although the interdicted person could have filed a regular action for the recovery of the emoluments.

      The Court, would not, in the exercise of its discretion, refuse a writ of Mandamus on the sole ground that another remedy is open to the applicant, unless such remedy is shown to be equally effectual as well as convenient.

      Where officials having a public duty to perform, refuse to perform it, Mandamus will lie, on the application of a person interested, to compel them to do so. The rule would also apply whore a public body fails to perform a public duty with which it is charged.

APPLICATION for a writ of Mandamus on the Chairman of a Village Committee, and on the Village Committee.

                 M. S. M. Nazeem, with M. T. M. Sivardeen, for the petitioner.

                H. A. Koattegoda, with M. L. de Silva, for the 1st respondent.

               M. L. de Silva, with K. D. U. Jayasekera, for the 2nd respondent.

               C. J. Mervyn Fernando, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.

Cur. adv. vult.

December 21,1962. WEERASOORIYA, S. P. J.-

      The petitioner is a member of the Local Government Service constituted under section 15 of the Local Government Service Ordinance (Cap. 204), and at the times material to this application he was the Secretary of the Village Committee, Otara Palata, the 2nd respondent, to which post he had been appointed by the Local Government Service Commission. Prior to this appointment he was the Secretary of the Daniyaya Village Committee. While serving in that post certain allegations against him of misappropriation of funds, and falsification of accounts, of the Deniyaya Village Committee came to be investigated, and pending the investigation the Local Government Service Commission transferred him as Secretary of the 2nd respondent. Subsequently, as a result of the practitioner being charged in the Magistrate's Court of Matara with the offences of misappropriation and falsification of accounts, the Commission made an order interdicting him, and directed the 1st respondent, as Chairman, to give effect to this order, which he did as from the 30th April, 1960, but under protest.

      The Commission also informed the 1st respondent that during the period of interdiction the petitioner should be paid one-half his emoluments. Both the 1st and 2nd respondents, however, disclaim liability to pay one-half the emoluments of the petitioner, or any sum at all, from the date of the interdiction, and have accordingly not paid him any part of his emoluments sinc