003-NLR-NLR-V-44-JEELIN-SILVA-v.-KULARATNE.pdf
Jeelin Silva v. Kularatne.
21
1942Present: Hearne J.
JEELIN SILVA v. KULARATNE
In the Matter of Election Petition No. 1 of Balapitiya
Election petition—Charges of undue influence—treating and impersonation—Charges of general intimidation, &c.—Charges in excess of three—Security insufficient—Ceylon (State Council Elections') Order in Council,1931, Rule 12 (2) and (3).
Where an election petition contained charges of undue influence,treating and impersonation which had been committed by the respondentor with his knowledge or consent by his agents, and where it also prayedthat the election be declared void by reason of general intimidation,and impersonation on a large scale and general treating,—
Held, that as more than three charges had been laid and as a sum ofRs. 5,000 only had been tendered as security, the petitioner had failedto comply with the requirements of Rule 12 (2) of the.Ceylon (StateCouncil Elections) Order in Council, 1931.
f
T
HIS was an application by the respondent to dismiss the electionpetition on the ground that the security tendered by the petitioner
was insufficient.
H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him G. P. J. Kurukulasuriya and G. P. A.Silva, instructed by S. R. Ameresekere) in support.
A'. P. de Zoysa (instructed by M. P. P. Samarasinghe) for therespondent, petitioner.
Cur. adv. vult.
22HEARNE J.—Jeelin Silva v. Kularatne.
August 25, 1942- Heabne J.—
The petition filed by the petitioner contained charges of undue influence,treating and- impersonation which, it was alleged, had been committed“by the respondent or with his knowledge or consent or by his agents”and it was prayed that the election of the respondent be declared voidby virtue of Article 74 (c) of the Ceylon (State Council Elections) Orderin Council, 1931. It was also prayed that the election be declared void“by reason of general intimidation and impersonation on a large scaleand of general treating ” (Article 74 (a) ).
Rule 12 (2) provides a minimum security of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 2,000for each charge in excess of three. The security is required to be given“at the time of the presentation of the petition or within three daysafterwards ”, and if not so given Rule 12 (3) provides that “ no furtherproceedings shall be had on the petition
The respondent has moved for the dismissal of the petition underRule 12 (3) on the ground that, as more than three charges were laidand as. a sum of Rs. 5,000 only was tendered as security, the petitionerfailed to comply with the requirements of Rule 12 (2).
It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that it was not his intentionto make a charge of general intimidation, general treating and impersona-tion on a large scale: that what he intended was to suggest that thegeneral character of the intimidation, treating and impersonation mightand probably would be inferred from the widespread activities of therespondent and his agents of which proof would be offered : and, finally,that while the respondent’s ingenuity has brought four charges to light,
, one of them can only be said to be “ latent in the petition ”.
The intentions and mental reservations of the petitioner are beside thepoint now in issue. The notion of a “ latent charge”, is without anylegal sanction. The only question is how many charges did the petition.contain? The answer, as a matter of simple calculation, is four. Therewer,e three of corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by therespondent of his agents and one of' general intimidation, generaltreating, &c. which, if proved, would have had the effect of unseating thesuccessful candidate, even if connivance on his part or agency could notbe established. It must, therefore, be held that- the security tendered bythe petitioner was insufficient.
It was further argued that even if the security was insufficient thepetition would not be dismissed on this ground alone by reason of theprovisions of Rules 19 to 21. It has been held by this Court that theserules have no application in cases where the petitioner has not furnishedsecurity to ,the right amount.
The motion is allowed with costs, to the respondent.
Petition dismissed.