Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1996%20Vol.2-P301&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:35:14+00:00

Document:
C.A. ELECTION PETITION NO. 2/94.
14TH AND 21ST DECEMBER 1995.
preference votes for the PA., that the Appellant is duly elected as a member of Parliament.
electoral district and not the election of a member.
partial avoidance of the election. Such an attempt would cross the boundary between construction and legislation.
1. Munasinghe v. Corea (1953) 55 N.L.R. 265.
2. Bandaranaike v. Premadasa (1989) 1 Sri L.R. 240.
3. Conganige Emmanuel Wallman Anthony v. S. H. M. Chandrasena S.C. Appeal No. 1/94 S.C. Minutes of 14th July 1994.
4. Weerasinghe v. Chandrananda de Silva, Commissioner of Elections 1922 - 1 Sri L.R. 76.
5. Cramas Properties Ltd., v. Connaught Fur Trimmings (1965) 1 W. L. R. 892.
6. Regina v. Broadcasting Complaints Commission Ex-parte Owen (1985) 1 Q. B. 1153.
7. Johnson v. Moreton (1980) A.C. 37.
8. Federal Steam Navigation Co., Ltd., v. Department of Trade & Industry (1974) 2 All E.R. 97.
9. In Re Lockwood (deceased) Atherton v. Brook (1957) 3 All E.R. 520.
10. Jones v. Wrotham Park Settled Estate (1979) 1 All E.R. 286, 289.
against an order of an election Judge.
Faisz Musthapha, P.C. with Mahanama de Silva, N.M. Saheed and Gaston Jayakody for Appellant.
K.C. Kamalasabayson, D.S.G. with Chanaka de Silva, S.C. for 1st and 2nd Respondents.
dealing with those matters in the Order in Council were repealed.
to be sent to the returning officer), and 60(1) (Declaration of the result), were repealed and suitablesubstitutionsmade.
polling station and in every compartment of every polling station), in order to accommodate preferential voting.
that the emphasis placed on some words in those sections are my own.
91. The election of a candidate as a Member is avoided by his conviction for any corrupt or illegal practice.
election for the purpose of electing a Member of Parliament.
(3) such non-compliance materially affecting the results of the election. (See - Munasinghe v. Corea(1) andBandaranaikev.
(d) A declaration that such of the candidates of the PA have been duly elected at the election after a recount.
was dealt with in detail. The Petitioner on the other hand relied onanotherdecisionofthisCourtinWeerasinghev.
identical question now at hand relating to the Parliamentary Elections Act.
a "part" and we are therefore amply justified in giving the construction he advanced by adopting a purposiveinterpretation.
the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of the Act. Perhaps,itwassosupposedinWeerasinghe'scase(supra).
justified as an exercise of its jurisdiction to determine what is the meaning of a written law which Parliamenthaspassed.
the constitution of this country is vested in the legislature to the exclusion of the courts.
and 2nd Respondents fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.