015-NLR-NLR-V-66-A.-C.-M.-HANIFFA-Appelicant-and-THE-CHAIRMAN-URBAN-COUNCIL-NAWALAPITIYA-R.pdf
48 TAMBIAH, J.—Hanijfa v. Chairman, Urban Council, Nawalapitiya
1963 Present: Tambiah, J., and Sri Skanda Rajah, J.' A. C. M. HANIFFA, Applicant, and THE CHAIRMAN, URBANCOUNCIL, NAWALAPITIYA, Respondent
<S. G. 315/63—Application for a writ of Mandamus on the Chairman,
Urban Council, Nawalapitiya
Mandamus—Necessary ‘parties—Requirement of stating name of an individual personas respondent.
A mandamus can only issue against a natural person, who holds a publicoffice. Accordingly, in, an application for a writ of mandamus against theChairman of an Urban Council, the petitioner must name the individual personagainst whom the Writ can be issued.
Application for a writ of mandamus.
Mohideen, for Applicant.
T. Samerawickreme, for Respondent.
December 20, 1963. Tambiah, J.—
In this application the petitioner has made the Chairman, UrbanCouncil, Nawalapitiya, the respondent. The petitioner should havenamed the person against whom a Writ of Mandamus can be issued.The Chairman, Urban Council, Nawalapitiya, is not a juristic person.The Privy Council has pointed out that the juristic person must becreated specially by statute (62 N. L. R. 169, 174, and at 182-183 ;65 N. L. R. 253). Even if the Chairman, Urban Council, Nawalapitiya,was a juristic person I fail to see how we can issue a Mandamus on ajuristic person. A Mandamus can only issue against a natural person,who holds a public office. If such a person fails to perform a duty afterhe has been ordered by Court, he can be punished for contempt of Court.Therefore the contention of Counsel for respondent must prevail. Theapplication is dismissed with costs fixed at Us. 157‘50.
Sbi Skanda Rajah, J.—I agree.
Application dismissed.