Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR%20-%201978-79-80%20Vol.1-%20P%2041&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:35:26+00:00

Document:
SAMARAKOON, C.J., SAMERAWICKRAME, J. AND WANASUNDERA, J.
ELECTION PETITION APPEAL 1 OF 1979 - ELECTION PETITION 1 OF 1977 (GALLE).
AUGUST 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 1979.
(Constitution) Order-in-Council (Cap.379), section 13(3) (c).
State business-Agent of State when entering into contracts for services for sale and distribution of petroleum.
elected to represent the Galle electorate as a Member of the National State Assembly on 21.7.77.
appeal to the Supreme Court.
parties by nomination day. The 1st respondent wastherefore not disqualified on this ground.
Petroleum Corporation but the Corporation did notacceptthisunilateralactiononthepartofthe1strespondent.
Renunciation by one party alone was insufficient and the contract therefore subsisted.
or enjoyed any right or benefit under any contract made by or on behalf of the Crown.
was void as he was disqualified from being so elected to the electorate of Galle on 25th July, 1977.
(1) Johnstone v. Milling, (1886 16 Q.B.D. 460 55 L.J. (QB.) 162, 54 L. T. 6292 T.L.R.
134 LT. 737, 42 T.L.R. 359.
(4) White & Carter (Councils) Ltd., v. McGregor Ltd., (1961) 3 All ER. 1178 H.L.
(1962) A. C. 413, (1962) 2 W.L.R. 17.
(5) Motion v. Michaud, (1892) 8 T. L. R, 253.
(1955) 2 All E.R. 722(1955) 2 Q.B. 556.
(7) Dahanayake v. Pieris, (1944) 45 N.L.R. 385.
(10) Amalgamated Society of Engineers v. Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd., 28 C.L.R.
(11) Queen v. Liyanage, (1965) 67 N.LR. 193.
APPEAL from an order of the Court of Appeal.
Mark Fernando, with B. T. Eliatamby and Miss A.E. Wickremasinghe, for the 1st respondent.
The appellant was a candidate for election to the electorate of Galle at the General Election held on the21stJuly,1977.
(6) Whether the 1st respondent is entitled to unilaterally terminate the contracts with the Corporations."
be declared elected in place of the first respondent.
agency. By writing dated 10.6.1967 (P6) the first respondent agreed to abide by the termsandconditionssetoutinP5.
"You are hereby informed that your letter of resignation is accepted accordingly."
be a disqualification for election as a member.
WITHOUT QUALIFICATION TO FORTHWITH TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT WITH ME."
He also wrote a letter dated 5.6.77 (1 R3) stating inter alia "IherebyterminatetheagreementwiththeCorporation".
wife. The Chairman then made the following minute (P3C) to the Marketing Manager.
"That is not the point. He gave up the Dealership without any notice. Please Spk. Is anyone operating the outlet now?"
Spoke to Ch. Await Developments."
reasons, namely, to serve the public."
decision on this matter based primarily on the documentary evidence.
except for the purpose of bringing an action upon it for the damages sustained by him in consequenceofsuchrenunciation.
when in the ordinary course a cause of action on the contract would arise. He must elect which course he will pursue."
per Lord Esher M.R. in Johnstone v. Milling (1) at 467.
he chooses, and to claim damages for its total breach, but it is a right in his option...................."
contract remains in full effect." (p 1181).
is of a different kind. It provided for notice of 3 months' duration should the respondent wish toterminatehisservices.
outlet so as not to disrupt a service essential to the life of the community. Some effect must be giventothisprovision.
the respondent was declared the winner in the poll.
The next question I have to consider is whether a contract between an elected M.P. and the State entails adisqualification.
prescribed by or under a law of the National State Assembly "
(d). The National State Assembly was empowered to do this by the provisions of section73(f)butchosenottodoso.
the House. Over seven years have passed, and two successive Parliaments have still not addressed their minds to thismatter.
situation until such time as Parliament decides to lay down afresh the necessary criteria.
be applied mutatis mutandis to the said matters."
(f) such other matters as are necessary or incidental to the election of members to the National State Assembly,"
"provided, however, that the law made under this section shall not add to the disqualifications enumerated in section 70."
13 (3) (c) of the Soulbury Constitution has to be considered for any disqualification by reason of contract.
Crown in the Island "
framework for placing petroleum and those activities connected with it, solely at the disposal of the State as itsmonopoly.
Corporation on behalf of the State.
Public Corporation" must be read into the section. Therefore the words "Crown in respect of theGovernmentoftheIsland"
words "in respect of the Government of the Island" was included to mean the Executive Government of the Island. In Queeenv.
on notice by this Court.
WANASUNDERA, J. - I agree.

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