110-NLR-NLR-V-51-PUNCHISINGHO-Petitioner-and-B.-H.-PERERA-Respondent.pdf
Punchisingho v. B. H. Persia
•to;
1949Present: Gratlaen J.
PUNCHISINGHO, Petitioner,and#. H. PERERA, Respondent8. C. 478—A pplication for a Writ of Quo Warranto
Writ of quo warranto— Village Committee Election—Disqualification for mem-bership—Application oj Local Authorities Elections Ordinance, No. S3 of1946—Sections £ (/) and 10 (/).
An applicant, who seek* to act aside the election of a village committeemember on the ground that he is the holder of a public office under the Crownand is, therefore, disqualified by section 10 (l)of the Local Authorities ElectionsOrdinance* must furnish material showing that the village committee in questionis governed by the Ordinance.
456
GRATIAEN J.—Punchieingha v. It. 11. Pertra
T
X HIS was an application for a writ of quo vxirranto seeking to setaside the election of a member of Adikari Pattu Village Committee,Bamunumulla.
A. B. Perera, for petitioner.
R. W. Jayewardene, for respondent.
December 13, 1949. Gbatuen J.—
The petitioner seeks to set aside the election of the respondent as mem*bor of Ward No. 7 of Adikari Pattu Village Committee, Bamunumulla,on the ground that the respondent is the holder of a public office underthe Crown within the meaning of soction 10 (1) of Ordinance No. 53 of1946. I find however that this Ordinance has no application to anyparticular Village Committee unless an order is published in the Govern-ment Gazette to that effect as required, by section 2 (2). Learned Counselfor the petitioner concedes that ho has no material to place before me toshow that the Village Committee in question is governed by the Ordinance.In those circumstances the present application is rejected with costs.The petitioner asks for leave to file fresh papers should he bo so advised.I allow the application, but only on condition that the petitioner hypothe-cates a sum of Rs. 315 with the Registrar of this Court as security of therespondent’s costs of any future application. Should such fresh papersbe filed the respondent will, of course, bo entitled to tako any furtherobjections to the granting of that application.
Application rejected.