Previous 8 / 24 Next

86 Sri L a n k a L a w R ep orts 1200012 S ri LR. respondent’s partnership and his company have entered into these contracts while the 1st respondent continues to remain as a Member of Parliament. It is to be observed that the contracts referred to in P2 to P10, P I 3 to PI 7, P25 and P26 have been entered into with M/s Senaratne Dental Supplies, the partnership business of the 1st respondent and they are contracts entered into directly with the State Institutions. Further contracts referred to in documents marked P2 to P5 and P6 have been entered into on a date prior to the incorporation and registration of the 1st respondents company Senaratne Dental Supplies (Pvt.) Ltd. Another observation to be made in respect of the document marked P2 is that, it has been signed by the 1st respondent as Managing Director, and in the case of documents marked P3 and P6. these two documents have been signed by. the 1st respondent as Managing Partner. In the documents marked P2 and P3 the Is' respondent has used the abbreviated designation M.P. which stands for Member of Parliament. It is also seen from the statement made to the police by the 1st respondent on 27. 03. 1996 marked P29, he has admitted the fact that he is a supplier of dental equipment and material to Government Institutions and has so registered himself as a supplier to such Government Institutions. In the objections filed by the 1st respondent, he has simply denied the several averments in the petition where the contracts entered into by the 1st respondent on behalf of his partnership business M/s Senaratne Dental Supplies, and on behalf of his Company Senaratne Dental Supplies (Private) Ltd. are mentioned. It is clear from the documents marked by the petitioner in connection with his partnership business and his company, that they are really family concerns of the l sl respondent which are being managed by him. Therefore from a close scrutiny of tire related documents marked by the petitioner, it is pretty obvious that the 1st respondent has entered into various contracts with the Government Institutions while being a Member of Parliament. Some contracts were entered into in the name of M/s Senaratne

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

10- Perera v. Senarathe

Judgment

Question Presented: The petitioner, an MP, complained that the respondent, also an MP, has illegally entered into contracts with government institutions and seeks a declaration that the respondent's appointment is void.

Alleged Acts: Multiple contracts with government institutions prior to and during the respondent's membership in Parliament.

Procedural history: The Supreme Court granted the petitioners leave to proceed on their alleged infringement of the Constitution.

Summary: The petitioner contested the respondent's election to Parliament because he maintained several contracts with government institutions to supply dental equipment. The respondent argued there is no law expressly prohibiting an MP from entering into government contracts. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 91(1)(e) of the Constitution does prohibit such acts, as well as Section 13(3)(c) of the Soulbury Constitution, which now applies to Sri Lankan law.

Conclusion: The Court granted the writ of quo warranto declaring the respondent's appointment void because he entered into prohibited contracts with the government and disqualified himself from sitting in Parliament.

Legal Issue(s)

Abuse of State Resources (ASR)

Applicable Law(s): Constitution- Article 91. Soulbury Constitution- Section 13(3)(c).

Region: Asia-Pacific

Country: Sri Lanka

Language of Decision

English

Court: Appellate Court

Election Type: Parliamentary

Date of decision: Dec 10, 1999

Geolocation

Latitude: 6.884395308

Longitude: 80.09218634

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

10- Perera v. Senarathe.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

10- Perera v. Senarathe

Primary Documents

Notifications