043-NLR-NLR-V-76-A.-R.-SILVA-Petitioner-and-K.-N.-W.-ABEYSEKERA-and-5-others-Respondents.pdf
H. N. G. FERNANDO, C.J.—Silva v. Abeysekera
215
Present: H. N. G. Fernando, C.J., and Wijayatilake, J.
A. R. SILVA, Petitioner, and K. 1ST. W. ABEYSEKERA and 5 others,
Respondents
<S. C. 819/70—Application for a Mandate in the nature of a Writ ofMandamus on K. N. W. Abeysekera, Assistant Elections Officer,Kalutara, and 5 others
Local Authorities Elections Ordinance (Gap. 262)—Section 31 (2)—Meaning of term“ true copy ”—Mandamus.
When the nomination paperof a candidate and a true copy thereof are delivered
<1
to the returning officer in conformity with the requirement of section 31 (1)of the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance, it is not necessary that the truecopy should bear the signature of the proposer or seconder. A copy of somesigned document need not itself be signed.
Application for a Writ of Mandamus.
Nawaz J. Vilcassim, for the petitioner.
S. Sivarasa, Crown Counsel, for the respondent.
January 20, 1971. H. N. G. Febnastdo, C.J.—
The petitioner was a candidate for election to a Village Council. Onnomination day two sets of nomination papers for the nomination of thepetitioner were delivered to the returning officer with copies thereof. Thereturning officer rejected one set on the ground that the copy did notbear the signature of the Seconder of the candidate. Section 31 (2) ofthe Local Authorities Elections Ordinance requires that every nominationpaper shall be delivered to the returning officer together with a copythereof. There is no provision in the sub-section that a copy need hearthe signature of the Proposer or Seconder, nor having regard to the truemeaning of the word “ copy ” can it be said that a copy of some signeddocument need itself be signed. In fact there are numerous provisions
216
H. N. G. FERNANDO, C.J.—Silva v. Abeysekera
in our Statutes relating to copies of documents from winch it is perfectlyclear that a copy of a document can be and is ordinarily made bv someperson other than the signatory of the dodument.
We are therefore of opinion that the returning officer wronglyrejected this nomination paper. In view of the fact that the electionin question has not yet taken place, learned Crown Counsel does not relyon any other objections which might have been taken to the presentapplication.
The Mandate asked for by the petitioner is granted. In thecircumstances, I make no order as to the costs of this application.
W Li A Y attlake , J.—I agree.
Application allowed.