Writ petition challenges election of non-residents to Maharagama UC

By S. S. Selvanayagam

Court of Appeal yesterday (16 May) issued notices on 23 members of the Maharagama Urban Council who had been elected on the Independent Group No: 2.

Justices P. Padman Surasena (President/CA) and Arjuna Obeysekara issued the Notices returnable for 28 June.

Registered Voter Chandrasena Perera of Maharagama filed the Writ petition, challenging impugned 23 Respondents who had been declared and elected to the Maharagama Urban Council in the election held on 10 February.

Faisz Musthapha PC with Amarasiri Panditharatne appeared for the Petitioner. 

H. Jayasheeli, W. A. Jayathissa, Sudarshani W. Jayathissa, all of Wellawatte; and M. S. Piyarathna, G. A. Sisira, Samanmala Janaki, Kanchana Madhushini, R. W. Wajira Malkanthi, A. Janapadaya, Sunethra Priyadarshani, Lakmini Thushari Gunawardana, Hansani Ruwanthi, Lalith Gunawardana, S. A. Sumanawathi, A. Janapadaya, Nihal Dayarathna, J. L. Kumarasiri, W. Dharmapriya, Lakmini Madhushani, Jayanthi Jayasekara, Nadeeka Kumari, Dilanthi Kusumsiri, D. Wimalawathi, all of Badalgama; Charlotte Kalyani of Hunumulla, B. D. Josephine of Asgiriya, as well as the Election Commission Chairman and its members, and Maharagama Urban Council as Respondents.

Petitioner stated that the 23 respondents have assumed office as members of the Maharagama Urban Council, and that on the date of the commencement of the preparation or revision of the parliamentary register for the time being in operation for the electoral district of Colombo, in which the electoral area of the Maharagama Urban Council is situated, the aforesaid respondents were not qualified to have their names entered in that register. 

He stated that on the first date of June in the year of the commencement of the preparation or revision of that register, which is the year 2017, these respondents were not ordinarily resident in that electoral area of the Maharagama Urban Council.

He states that these respondents were not qualified for election as members of the Maharagama Urban Council, and/or to sit as members, and/or to vote as members, inasmuch as the aforesaid respondents did not have the general qualification for election required by Section 8 of the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance. He contends the election of these respondents are therefore void, since they did not have the qualification required by Section 08 of the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance.