050-NLR-NLR-V-46-DE-SOYSA-v.-KULATILEKE.pdf
De Zoysa e. Kulatileke.
148
1945
Present: Wijeyewardene J.
DE ZOYSA v. KULATILEKE.
In re Writ of Quo Warranto against S. S. Kulatileke.
Writ n) quo warranto—Election to Municipal Council—Respondent not inoffice de facto—Regularity of writ.
An application for a writ of quo warranto will not be granted to setaside an election to a municipal council when, at the time the rule nisiwas issued, the respondent had not attended any meeting of the councilor done any other act showing that be had acted in or accepted theoffice of municipal councillor.
46/16=
? {1914) 4 Balasingham’s notes of cases 31 at p. 32.
144
WIJEYEWARDENE J.—De Zoysa v. Kulatileke.
^^PPLICATION for a mandate in the nature of writ of quo warranto.
The petitioner appeared in person.
V. 8. Barr Kumarakulasingham (with him Vernon Wijetunga) forthe respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
March 13, 1945. Wijeyewardene J.—
This is an application for a mandate in the nature of a writ of quowarranto. The petitioner seeks to have it declared that the election ofthe respondent as member for the Kuppiyawatta Ward in the ColomboMunicipal Council is null and void.
The respondent on whom a rule nisi was served has taken a preliminaryobjection that the petitioner is not entitled to the writ as the respondentwas not in office de facto either at the time the petitioner made hisapplication or the Court issued the rule nisi.
The only material allegation in the petitioner's affidavit relevant tothis objection is in paragraph 13 which reads—
“The Returning Officer declared the respondent elected, and therespondent was by Gazette No. 9,311 of September 15, 1944, declaredelected as Councillor for the Kuppiyawatta Ward by the MunicipalCommissioner ”.
It was conceded by the petitioner that, even at the time the rule nisiwas issued, the respondent had not attended any meeting of the Councilor done any other act showing that he had acted in or accepted theoffice of Municipal Councillor.
In these circumstances I am compelled to uphold the preliminaryobjection (vide The Queen v. Blatter 1 and The Queen v. Quayle 2.)
I discharge the rule with costs.
Buie discharged.
-e-
(1840) 113 Englsih Reports 507.
(1840) 113 English Reports 508.