Rajakaruna c. A. G. i., Kalutara.
1943Present r Soerfcsz J.
BAJAKABUXA r. A. G. A., KAIXTABA.
Is the AIattbr of ax Applicatiox fob a AVrtt of Mandamusox the Assistaxt Goverxaibxt Agkxt, Eaiutaka.
IT’"ten Czinurils Ordinance. No. 61 of 1939. s. 9 (2' and (?)—Insertion ofname in listof voters and candidates—Conclusivenatureof list—Sole
erHence cf qualification—Writ of Mandamus.
The respondent, in compliance with section 9(1)ofthe UrbanCouncils
Ordinance, prepared a listof personsqualified to voteandof persons
qualifiedtc ce candidates for election and exhibitedthose listsashe was
required to dobythesection-The petitioner’snameappeared in
neither of theselistsandhe wrotea letter to therespondent requesting
-he respondent to insert his name “ in the above listThe respondent
understood bis requesttomean inthe list of voters, ascandidates for
electionare voters with additional qualifications.
Held.that the respondent had acted in conformitywiththerequire-
ments cf the Ordinance and that the lists certified by him constitutedshe sole evidence of the qualifications of the petitioner.
Held, further, that the decision ofthe respondentonpetitioner’s claim
was. by virtue of section 9(2), finaland conclusive.
In these drcomstances awrit of Mandamus does,notlieagainst the
SOERTSZ J.—Rajakaruna v. A. G. A., Kalutara
HIS was an application for a writ of Mandamus against the AssistantGovernment Agent, Kalutara.
A. P. de Zoysa (with him S. S. Kulatileke), for the petitioner.
22 . 22. Orosette-Thambiah, G.C., for the respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
November 30, 1943. Sobktsz J.—
This is an application for a writ of mandamus to the Assistant Govern-ment Agent at Kalutara to order him to insert the name of the petitionerin the list of persons qualified to be candidates for election in respect ofWard No. 9 in the Kalutara Urban Council area.
It is claimed by the petitioner, and it is not denied by the respondent,that the petitioner has the qualifications necessary for the insertion ofhis name in that list, but the respondent contends that Ihe non-appearanceof the petitioner’s name is due entirely to the petitioner’s own defaultand that he may not now question the final and conclusive effect givento the list certified by the respondent by section 9 (7) of the UrbanCouncils Ordinance, No. 61 of 1939.
The material facts from which the question before me has arisen arethese: The respondent, having in compliance with section 9 (1) of theOrdinance prepared a list of persons qualified to vote as specified insection 7 and of persons qualified to be candidates for election as specified,in section 8, exhibited those lists on July 30, 1943, that is to say, “ notlater than three months before the election ” as he was required to do bysection 9 (1). The petitioner’s name appeared in neither of these lists.On August 17, 1943, that is well within the time fixed by the respondentfor claims and objections to be made in respect of the lists he had exhibited,the petitioner wrote the letter R. 1 requesting the respondent to inserthis name and that of another “ in the above list The heading of theRailway Station Ward No. 9
letter is In the context the words “ in the
above list ” reasonably interpreted mean “ in the list of voters ”, forcandidates for election are voters with certain additional qualifications.If the petitioner desired to have his name inserted in both lists, one wouldhave thought that he would have said “ in the above listsThat, at
any rate, is how the respondent understood the petitioner’s applicationand he allowed it and inserted the petitioner’s name as that of a claimantseeking to have it entered in the list of voters. The petitioner’s assertionin paragraph 5 of his affidavit that his name was posted as a claimantfor insertion in the list of voters and members ” is denied by therespondent and is not borne out by the office copy of the list. Perhapsthis is another instance of the wish being father to the thought. Inthese circumstances it is clear that .the respondent acted in conformitywith the requirements of the Ordinance and that therefore in virtue ofsection 9 (7) the lists certified by him are final and conclusive and con-stituted the sole evidence of the qualifications of the petitioner. Onemay not go behind those lists, even if one is satisfied as one is in thiscase, that, in point of fact, the petitioner had the necessary qualifications
JAYETHrEKE J.—Lieversz v. Kannangara.
to have his name inserted in the list of candidates as well. Section 9 (2)also stands in the way of the petitioner’s claim, for upon the materialbefore me it is established that the decision given by the respbndenton the petitioner’s claim was that his name should be inserted in thelist of voters. That decision is " final and conclusive ” by that sub-section.
The petitioner* has been careless to an extraordinary extent and mustsuffer the consequences in which he is involved.
A writ of mandamus does not lie in a case in which the law and thefacts are such as they are shown to be in this case. I refuse the applica-tion with costs.
RAJAKARUNA v. A. G. A. KALUTARA