064-NLR-NLR-V-54-IN-RE-S.-N.-RAJAH-Elections-Officer-Jaffna.pdf
In re Sv N. Rajah
263
1952Present : Pulle J.
Rs re S. N. RAJAH (Elections Officer, JaSna)
Application for a Writ of Mandamus on D. S. Ratnadurai,Returning Officer, Jaffna
Mandamus—Election for ward of Municipal Council—Application for recount ofballot papers—Necessary parties— Local Authorities Elections Ordinance,No. S3 of 1946, s. 68.
An Elections Officer is not a necessary party to an application for a writ ofmandamus in' which relief is sought against the Returning Officer or the CountingOfficer in respect of an. election held under the Local Authorities ElectionsOrdinance…
264
PTZTLLE J.—In re S. N. Rajah
IVIoTION for the discharge of one of the respondents in an applicationfor a writ of mandamus.
Walter Jayctwardene, Crown Counsel, in support of motion.
S. Barr Kumarakulasinghe, with T. W. Bajarat.nam. for the petitionerrespondent.
Cur. adv. vvlt.
October 10, 1952. Ptxlxe J.—
The motion on which I am asked to make an order is at the instance ofthe 2nd respondent to an application for a writ of mandamus. Thepetitioner was the unsuccessful candidate at an election held on the 1stDecember, 1951, for Ward No. 13 of the Jaffna Municipal Council. The3rd respondent was the successful candidate who won by a majority ofseven votes. The ballot papers were counted twice by the 1st respondentwho discharged the dual functions of Presiding Officer and CountingOfficer. It is alleged against him that he failed to discharge the duty caston him personally to count the ballot papers. The relief sought by thepetitioner is a mandate on the 1st respondent ordering a recount of theballot papers..
No relief is sought against the 2nd respondent but it is stated that hehas been made a party to give him notice of the proceedings. Thepetitioner alleges that after the counting the 1st respondent handed thecounted ballot papers, the rejected ballot papers, the counterfoils andthe marked register to the 2nd respondent, who is described as theElections Officer, in terms of section 68 of the Local Authorities ElectionsOrdinance, No. 53 of 1946. The 2nd respondent moves that he bedischarged from the proceedings.
.There is no statutory requirement that an Elections Officer should bemade a party to any proceedings in which relief is sought against theReturning Officer or the Counting Officer. It is not argued for the peti-tioner that in order to enable the court effectually and completely toadjudicate upon the questions involved it is necessary that the 2ndrespondent should be a party. If for any reason the petitioner thoughtit desirable to give notice to the 2nd respondent that he has applied fora writ of mandamus against the 1st respondent, he could have done sowithout making him a party to the case.
I would, therefore, allow the motion and discharge the 2nd respondentfrom the proceedings. He will be entitled to his costs.
Motion, allowed.