011-NLR-NLR-V-52-RATWATTA-Petitioner-and-BELIGAMMANA-Respondent.pdf
19^9Present Basnayake J.
RA.TWATTA, Petitioner, and BERIGAjV.T]VXANA, Respondent
Application for the Execution of the Decree -in Election PetitionNo. 16 of 1947 (Mawanella)
Election petition—Taxation of costs—Registrar’s function cannot be delegated
Parliamentary Election Petition Rules, 1946, Rkile 33.
The Registrar of the Supreme Court cannot delegate to a Deputy Registrarhis function of taxing costs in a Parliamentary election petition.
T
HIS was an application for the execution of the decree in Election ofPetition No. 16 of 1947 (Mawanella).
Q-. T. Samarawichrerne, for petitioner.
November 21, 1949. Basnayake J.—
The successful respondent to the election petition presented by C.B. Beligammana makes this application for the issue of writ against thepetitioner’s property for the recovery of the balance sum due to him ascosts, namely, Bs. 2,775.05. The application avers that the bill of costshas been taxed by the Deputy Registrar of this Court.
Buie 33 of the Parliamentary Election Petition Buies, 1946, providesthat the costs shall be taxed by the Begistrar. Neither the Ceylon(Parliamentary Elections) Order in Council, 1946, nor the ParliamentaryElection Petition Buies, 1946, defines the expression “ Begistrar ” so asto include his deputy. Learned counsel for the applicant has invitedmy attention to section 3 (3) of the Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections)Order in Council, 1946, which subject to certain exceptions makes theInterpretation Ordinance applicable to the interpretation of the Order-in-Council. On the authority of that provision he argues that undersection 11 (c) of the Interpretation Ordinance his deputy may properlyperform the functions that devolve on the Begistrar of this Court underthe Parliamentary Election Petition Buies, 1946. The provision of theInterpretation Ordinance on which learned counsel relies reads :
“ (c) for the purpose of expressing that a law relative to the chief orsuperior of an office shall apply to the deputies or subordinateslawfully executing the duties of such office in place of suchchief or superior, it shall be deemed to have been and to besufficient to prescribe the duty of such chief or superior. ”
I am unable to agree with the learned counsel that that rule enables anofficer charged by statute with certain functions to delegate his functionsto any subordinate. That provision, to my mind, enables a deputyor subordinate to perform the duties of his chief or superior when he isacting in place of his chief or superior and lawfully executing the dutiesthat appertain to the office of his chief or superior.
I accordingly direct the applicant to have the bill of costs taxed by theBegistrar and thereafter if he wishes to do so to make his application fora writ for any sum due to him over and above that deposited as securityfor costs.
Application rejected.