Court fixes 14 petitions against rejected nominations for 19 Jan.

By S.S. Selvanayagam

The Court of Appeal yesterday fixed for 19 January the 14 writ petitions over the rejection of nomination papers. 

Eight petitions are over the issue of female candidates. The bench comprised Justices P. Padman Surasena (CA President) and Justice Shiran Gunaratne. Manohara de Silva PC, appearing for one petition, submitted that there were 14 writ petitions.

He pleaded in Court that he wanted to support the petition before the postal voting date of 22 January. Senior Deputy Solicitor General Arjun Obeysekera told Court that these 14 writ petitions could be categorised separately into three.

The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and United People’s Freedom Front, etc. have filed writ petitions.

Petitions have been filed for the Kinniya Pradeshiya Sabha, Buttala Pradeshiya Sabha, Tripane Pradeshiya Sabha, Weligama Urban Council, Panadura Urban Council, Mahiyanganaya PSD, Maharagama Urban Council and Badulla Urban Council, etc. The SLPP in its writ application seeks the Court to validate its nomination paper submitted for the election of members to the Maharagama Urban Council at the forthcoming local polls. Petitioners Nishantha Wimalachandra, Savithri Gunasekara, Angoda Liyanage Pradeep Chaminda, Wanniarachchige Don Amarapala and Inoka Anuratha Ranaweera cited Returning Officer Damayanthi Wanigasinghe, SLFP Secretary Dumminda Dissanayake, UNP Secretary Kabir Hashim and JVP Secretary Tilvin Silva as respondents.

They filed the writ petition over the rejection of their nomination paper wherein one female candidate had been inadvertently identified as male.

They seek a declaration from Court that their nomination paper tendered to the Returning Officer in respect of the election of the members to the Maharagama Urban Council is valid for the purposes of the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance or liable to be received and accepted as valid for the election of members to the Maharagama Urban Council.

They claim the decision of the Returning Officer to reject their nomination paper is capricious and erroneous.