100
Sri Lanka Law Reports
1200012 Sri LR.
that the 1st respondent while being a member of Parliament
has been a party to several contracts (eight contracts) entered
into with him (i. e. 1st respondent's partnership and company)
by several Government Departments and Institutions on
behalf of the State. They are contracts prohibited in terms of
Section 13(3)(c) of the Soulbury Constitution. The term “crown"
has now been replaced by the Republic of Sri Lanka and
therefore the 1st respondent by holding the contracts referred
to above with the Republic of Sri Lanka has disqualified
himself from sitting and voting in Parliament. In other words
the 1st respondent is disqualified to function or sit and vote as
a member of Parliament of Sri Lanka.
In this application question has been raised on behalf of
the 1st respondent with regard to the Locus Stcmdi of the
petitioner to file this application. It is to be observed that quo
warranto is a remedy available to call upon a person to show
by what authority he claims to hold such office. Therefore the
basic purpose of the writ is to determine whether the holder of
a public office is legally entitled to that office. If a person is
disqualified by law to hold statutory office the writ is available
to oust him. Vide Gunasekera us. Wijesinghe191.This writ would
not be issued unless the statute itself clearly disentitles
a person from holding such office. Vide Martin Perera us.
Madadombe(,0>. In mandamus the petitioner must show that he
is a person aggrieved but this requirement is not necessary in
quo warranto, since this writ seeks to prevent an occupier or
a usurper of an office of public nature from continuing in that
position. Therefore in these proceedings it would appear that
any person can challenge the validity of an appointment to a
public office irrespective of whether any fundamental or other
legal right of that person is infringed or not. But the Court must
be satisfied that the person so applying is bona fide in his
application and that there is a necessity in public interest to
declare judicially that there is an usurpation of public office.
On the contrary if the applicant concerned is not bonafid e in
his application, he cannot claim this remedy. Even though the