SLPP seeks SC remedy SLPP seeks SC remedy | Daily News
Rejection of Nominations:

SLPP seeks SC remedy SLPP seeks SC remedy

Seven members of Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) yesterday filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court naming Election Commission Chairman Mahinda Deshapriya and several others as respondents.

They are seeking an order in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Returning Officer appointed for the Maharagama Urban Council to accept the nomination paper delivered to the Election Officer by the authorised agent of the SLPP for the election of members to the Maharagama Urban Council.

The nomination papers handed by the SLPP were rejected on the grounds that it did not contain the total number of women candidates in terms of subsection (2A) of section 28 of the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance.

Seven petitioners who nominated themselves as candidates for election for the constituting wards of the Maharagama Urban Council are also seeking an Interim Order restraining the Election Commission from taking further steps under the provisions of the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance to proceed with holding the election to the Maharagama Urban Council.

This petition was filed through Senior Counsel Kanishka Vitharana and Counsel H.M. Tillekaratne.

The petitioners had cited Damayanthi Wanigasinghe, Assistant Commissioner of Elections (Colombo District), Election Commission Chairman Mahinda Deshapriya and two other members of the Election Commission, SLFP General Secretary Dumminda Dissanayake, UNP General Secretary Kabir Hashim and JVP General Secretary Tilvin Silva as respondents.

The petitioners maintained that the decision to reject the nomination paper had been arrived at by failing to properly and reasonably exercise and execute the statutory and legal duty vested in the first respondent, Damayanthi Wanigasinghe by failing to examine the nomination paper to ascertain the fact whether the nomination paper contained the required number of women candidates.

They further alleged the she had failed to evaluate evidence before her and misdirected herself in fact and in law, which is also amounts to causing an error of material facts.

They further stated the first respondent failed to give a fair hearing to the authorised agent or consider and do further examination of the material before her, referred to in the submissions made by the authorised agent. 

 


 

Add new comment

Or log in with...