SOERTSZ S.P.J.—William, v. Premachandra,
1947Present: Soertsz, S.P.J.
WILLIAM, Petitioner, and PREMACHANDRA, RespondentElection petition No. 10 of 1947, Kadwgannawa
Election petition—Withdrawal by Petitioner—Payment of expenses of public servants—power of Court— Rule 21—Parliamentary Elections Order in Council, 1046.Where a petitioner seeks to withdraw an election petition the Court haspower under rule 21 of the Paliamentary Elections Order in Council to orderthe petitioner to pay, in addition to the costs of the respondent, a sum of moneyon account of the time of public servants who had been occupied in dealingwith the petition.
PPLICATION to withdraw an election petition.
Christie Senemratne, for the petitioner.
T. Samatawicktame, for the intervening petitioner.
S. R. Wijayatilake, for the respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
December 19, 1947. Soertsz, S. P- J .—
On the face of it, this application by the petitioner to withdraw hispetition challenging the elect'on of the respondent looks simple andgood-natured but, then it may not be as good as it looks, and it behoves
Kuruppu v. HolliarcUchy.
one to take measures to prevent, as far as possible, petitioners fromcoming forward with petitions without proper consideration, and perhapswith ulterior motives, and then moving to withdraw them too readilywhen some purpose has been served regardless of the public time thathas been wasted.
In this case, the grounds on which the petitioner moves to withdrawthe petition may well be genuine, but I cannot say that they are con-vincing because the matters adduced as grounds for the withdrawalof the petition are matters which should have engaged the attention ofthe petitioner before he filed his petition. Some notice, I think, mustbe taken of this. I would, therefore, direct that the petitioner do pay,in addition to the costs of the respondent, a sum of Rs, 500 on accountof the time of the several public servants who have been occupied indealing with this petition at different stages. Rule 21 provides that“ leave to withdraw may be given upon such terms as to the paymentof costs and otherwise as judge may think fit ”. I interpret the word“ otherwise ” in the context as vesting the judge before whom an.application to withdraw an election petition comes with the discretion tomake such an order in an appropriate case.
Let the matter now be submitted to the Chief Justice for his directionsunder rule 33, sub-section (2) in regard to the respondent’s costs andunder rule 14, sub-section (2) in regard to the second part of my order,and also for his directions under rule 14 (3). His attention shouldbe invited to the application made by Dunuwille Herbert Jayawickreme.