047-NLR-NLR-V-67-L.-P.-PERERA-and-4-others-Petitioners-and-THE-CELYON-GOVERNMENT-RAILWAY-UNIFOR.pdf
1963
lfll
Present: H. N. G. Fernando, J.
P. PERERA and 4 others, Petitioners, andTHE CEYLON GOVERNMENT RAILWAY UNIFORM STAFFBENEVOLENT FUND and another, Respondents
8. C. 459J1962—In the matter of an Application foi an InterimInjunction and Mandate in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus.
Railway Uniform Staff Benevolent Fund Ordinance—Section 17—Duty of secretary andtreasurer to summon general meetings—Not a public auty—Mandamus.
The duty, under section 17 of the Railway Uniform Staff Benevolent FundOrdinance, of the secretary and treasurer to summon a general meeting isneither a public duty nor a duty to be performed in the interests of or for thebenefit of the public. Accordingly, the writ of mandamus will not lie to compelits performance.
Application for a writ of Mandamus.
8. Barr Kumarakulasinghe, with Prins Gunatekera, K. Batnesarand D. 8. Wijesinghe, for the petitioners.
W. Jayeivardene, Q.C., with G. T. Samerawickreme andH. W. Senanayake, for the respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
March 11,1963. H. N. G. Fernando, J.—
After hearing argument I refused this application and now state myreasons. The petitioners who are members of the Railway Uniform StaffBenevolent Fund have applied for a writ of Mandamus to direct theSecretary and Treasurer of the Fund to call a General Meeting of themember, of the Fund. The duty to call such a meeting upon a writtenrequisition of 50 or more members is cast upon the Secretaiy andTreasurer by section 17 of the Railway Uniform Staff BenevolentFund Ordinance (Cap. 284) and the application is designed to compelperformance of that duty.
Chapter 284 is reproduced in the Revised Edition of the LegislativeEnactments under the title containing “Private Ordinances”. Thefact that the Ordinance is contained in that title does not of courseconclusively establish that duties cast upon persons by any provisionof the Ordinance are merely private duties to be exercised in the intei estsof private persons and not of the public. But an examination of theprovisions of the Ordinance does establish that it is within the meaning ofStanding Order 52 of the Standing Orders of the House of Representativesan Ordinance merely intended to affect or benefit a private association.
The association wa? in existence as an unincorporate body prior to theenactment of the Ordinance, which apparently was intended to conferon the association the benefits of incorporation subject to certainconditions imposed in the interests of the members of the corporation.
Counsel for the petitioners has pointed to certain provisions of theOrdinance which confer, inter alia, powei on the Permanent Secretaryto the Ministry to approve the appointment of the Secretary andTreasurer, power on the Secretary to the Treasury to cause the accountsof the Fund to be examined and powers on the Minister to approveamendments of the rules of the Fund. These power? undoubtedlyconstitute a safeguard to secure that the matters which they affect aresupervised by public officers. But there is nothing in the Ordinance toindicate that these safeguards weie provided in the interests of thepublic. The only persons who can benefit from the maintenance of theFund and from the safeguards provided are the members of the Fundwho apparently can consist only of persons who belong to the RailwayUniform Staff. But even if it can be said that those public officerswhen required to act e r officio under the Ordinance do x>erform statutorypublic duties, the same cannot be said of the Secretary and Treasurerwho is a person appointed to his office by the members of the Fundacting in then personal capacities. I hold therefore that the duty undersection 17 to summon a general meeting is neither a public duty nora duty to be performed in the interests of or for the benefit of thepublic. Accordingly, the writ of Mandamus will not lie.
Application refused.