Anandakumaraswamy v. Thiagarajah
1971Present: H. N. G. Fernando, CJ., Sirimane, J., and
S. ANANDAKUMARASWAMY, Appellant, and A. THIAGARAJAH,
Election Petition Appeal No. 4 of 1971—Electoral District No. 75
Parliamentary election—Election petition—Allegation of corrupt or illegal practice—Requirement of full particulars in the petition itself—Ceylon (ParliamentaryElections) Order in Council (Cap. 381), as amended by Act, No. 9 of 1970,ss. 80 B (d), 80 C.
Section 80 B (d) of the Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Order in Council,as amended by Act No. 9 of 1970, requires “ full particulars ” of any allegedcorrupt or illegal practice to be stated in the petition itself. This requirementis mandatory. The only exception is that which is provided in section 80 C.
ELECTION Petition Appeal No. 4 of 1971—Electoral District No. 76(Vaddukoddai).
M.Tiruchelvam, Q.C., with H. L. de Silva, S. C. Crossette-Thambiahand K. Sivanandan, for the petitioner-appellant.
O.ThiaQalingam, Q.C., with S. Sharvananda, T. Sunderalingam andP, Thwaiappah, for the respondent-respondent.
H. N. Q. FEBNANDO, C.J.—Anandakumaraswamy v. Thiagarajah 171
September 9, 1971. H. N. G. Febnando, C.J.—
This appeal was dismissed after we had heard the submissions of Counselfor the appellant; but it is desirable to set out our opinion on one aspectof the law relating to Election Petitions, which was referred to at thehearing.
The learned Election Judge held that the petitioner in this case hadfailed to set out in his petition (as required by s. 80B (d) of the Orderin Council) “ full particulars ” of the alleged illegal practice charged inthe petition, which was that the 1st respondent had made a false returnof his Election expenses by omitting to include certain expenses in thereturn. The only " particulars ” mentioned in the petition took theform of a statement that duplicates of 5 receipts for payment for printingallegedly issued to the 1st respondent had been seen among the booksand records of a printing establishment. The petitioner did not statethat these alleged payments had been made by the 1st respondent forthe printing of any Election notices or pamphlets ; nor did he refer toany orders for printing issued by the 1st respondent or to any billssubmitted to the latter by the printing establishment. Indeed, Counselfor the petitioner could not at the appeal seriously contend that “ fullparticulars” of the alleged illegal practice had been furnished in thepetition.
Prior to the amending Act No. 9 of 1970, Buie 5 of the Eleotion PetitionBuies provided for the filing of particulars upon an order made in thatbehalf by an Election Judge. But thereafter, s. 80B requires “ fullparticulars ” of any alleged corrupt or illegal practice to be stated in thepetition itself. Parliament has thus imposed a clear requirement that apetition must contain all the particulars necessary to inform therespondent of the matters on which a petitioner relies when he alleges thecommission of a corrupt or illegal practice.
In our opinion, this requirement is mandatory, and the failure of apetitioner to comply with it necessitates the dismissal of a petition.The only exception would be in a case where an Election Judge thinksfit, as provided in s. 80C (1), to allow a petitioner to furnish furtherparticulars. The petitioner in the present case made no attempt toresort to that Section, and the question whether the Election Judgecould properly have allowed relief to the petitioner under that Sectiondid not therefore arise for consideration in this appeal.
Sibimane, J.—I agree.
RtMwttwrmm*MBr J.—I agree.
S. ANANDAKUMARASWAMY, Appellant, and A. THIAGARAJAH, Respondent