Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1992%20Vol.1-P76&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:43:08+00:00

Document:
material facts - Official acts.
Porportional representation of the people in Parliament was introduced to the electoral process by the Constitution of1978.
Article 99 provided for proportional representation with a single list of candidatesfromapartyorindependentgroup.
corresponding to the number assigned to each candidate of his preference.
respondent with the help of several counting officers.
the number it makes the vote quite uncertain and such a vote should be rejected as void and not taken into account.
completely outside the cage enclosing the serial numbers of candidates, his intention is not at all clear is correct.
paper account to them. He has to open each ballot box and count the ballots inside each box in the presenceoftheagents.
counting agent is not a helpless passive spectator merely gazing at ballot papers.
brought it to the notice of the Returning Officer.
order for inspection could therefore be made in the first instance.
election of a candidate should not be lightly interfered with.
circumstances the Election Judge was correct in refusing inspection and dismissing the petition in limine.
(1) Woodward v. Sarsons and Sadler (1875) LR 10 CP 733, 747 (CA).
(2) Pontdarwe (1907) 2 K.B. 313.
(3) Kaleel v. Themis 57 N.L.R. 396, 399, 402, 405.
(4) Rajapakse v. Kadirgamanathan 68 N.L.R. 14.
(5) West Bromwick (1911) 60 0' M & H 257.
(6) Bandaranaike v. Premadasa (1989) 1 Sri L.R.
(7) Samar Singh v Kedar Nath 1957 S.C.C. 663.
(8) Arthur Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 S.C.C. 313.
(9) Kuruppu v. Hettiaratchy 49 N.L.R. 201.
APPEAL under Section 102 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, No. 1 of 1981 read with Article 130(b) of the Constitution.
Faiz Mustapha, P.C. with Manohara de Silva, M. S. M. Suhaid and G. Jayakody for appellant.
Asoka de Silva, D.S.G. with Kumar Arulananda SC. for 1st and 2nd respondents.
E D. Wickramanayake with Javid Usuf for 32nd respondent.
32nd respondent who was himself amongst the candidates contesting from the Sri Lanka Freedom Party.
the appellant was duly elected.
(b) a declaration that the appellant was duly elected.
(b) A security or recount of the preference votes of the SLFP candidates.
reverse to the presiding officer and place the paper in the Ballot Box and quit the polling station. Thosedirectionsalso.
set out the circumstances under which a ballot paper should be declared void and not counted.
the name of the candidate as to leave no doubt.
(3) Law and Practice of Election Petitions by Pandit Nanak Chand, pp. 231-234.
compliance with them may have led to voidance of the election as being contrary to the principle of anelectionbyballot.
can be gleaned from the body of the judgments in these cases, to wit: in the case of Woodward v. Sarsons (supra) atp.747.
provisions of the statute so as to bring about substantial certainty to the processofdeterminingtheelector'schoice.
to agree with this submission.
counting the votes are challenged.
performed such official acts regularly.
instant case) was considered by that Court (obiter) to suffice to order a recount.
materially prejudiced and the result of the election materially affected.
have the power to order an inspection and a recount.
Part VII of the Act.
reliefs he seeks to setting aside the election of an individual member only.
elected and ought to have been returned.
The petitioner-appellant as an interim step has prayed for an inspection of the votes as a prelude to a recount.
stating names and addresses of persons so appointed shall be submitted to the counting officer before thecountcommences.
part to take an objection and have it journalised it anything improper is done during the count.
case are true) over a thousand such objections contemporaneously taken would be recorded in thejournalifnotcorrected.
number of preference votes given to each candidate. The counting agent can sign that statement asawitnessandcopyit.
the official figures with their own figures and have any grievance recorded and heard before the declaration of results.
something else. The matters complained of in the petitioner's affidavit have, therefore, to be approached with caution.
that the averments in the petition and affidavit contained only allegations but included no material facts.
by his affidavit contain only bare allegations ofmisconductbyofficialsassistingintheconductoftheelection.
were not properly done at this election. No interim order for inspection could therefore be made in the first instance.
dismissing the petition in limine. I affirm the judgment of the Election Judge and dismiss this appeal with costs.
each, making up a total of 6 members which that electoral district was entitled to elect.
was declared elected as the SLFP member by a majority of 76 votes over the petitioner.
In his petition the petitioner prayed for declarations and orders to the following effect.
(e) an order for a recount/scrutiny of the preferences indicated by voters for the SLFP candidates, at the said elections.
against any of the other candidates all of whom he joined as parties.
ballot papers, which was the serial number allocated to him and not on the cage enclosing the serial number.
when the preferences secured by the SLFP candidates were being counted.
32nd respondent over and above what he had actually secured and preparing the analysis sheets/statementsrelatingtosame.
in charge of that counting centre, but he too did not take any steps in that regard.
required to retain under Section 63(1).
allegations set out in the petition, not entitled to any relief. Their position may be summarized under two heads.
result which he is not entitled to under Section 92(1).
relief of scrutiny which was available under Section 80(c) of the Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections)OrderinCouncil(Cap.
dismissed in limine as the petitioner has not placed adequate material before Court.
to the counting of preference votes in favour of a candidate.
in Kuruppu v. Hettiaratchy (8) and Kaleel v. Themis (3) on the power of the Court to order an inspection or a recount.
which I have summarized earlier in this judgment.
obtain material to support his case and ruled that this is not permissible.
material facts on which the petitioner relies.
candidates. On an objection that the position was on the face of it bad Pulle, J. said (58 NLR 396 at 402) (3).
petitioner were counted for his rivals".
on the ground that it has been filed on insufficient material.
(the petitioner) was not then dissatisfied with the counting".
case the refusal of the application for inspection is right.
provisions of the Act and such noncompliance has affected the result of the election".
unable to agree with these submissions, for the following reasons.
Act are such as cannot be permitted under Section 39(1).
placed on the relevant cage.
(b) I do not accept the contention that there is a cage adjacent to number 9 resembling the cage opposite the partysymbols.
is no such cage as alleged which would excuse a voter being misled.
of his discretion on the facts before him.
the recourse to Section 63(2) was merely an effort to cure this deficiencey.
adjudicating upon such challengebut an inspection of the ballot papers may assist the Court.
the result of the inspection. As the petitioner has succeeded partly, I allow him half the costs of this appeal.
H. A. G. DE SILVA, J.
that I too would dismiss the appeal with costs.

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