Previous 5 / 24 Next

CA Dilan Perera v. Kaj itha Senaratne (Yapa, J.) 83 In support the petitioner has produced the following documents i.e. the Memorandum of Association and the Articles of Association of the said company Senaratne Dental Supplies (Private) Limited dated 11. 12. 1995 marked P30 and P31 respectively, where the three subscribers are N.H.R.H. Senaratne the 1sl respondent, Sujatha Senaratne and N.H .M .P. Senaratne, the certificate for registration of office dated 11. 12. 1995 marked P32, the Company Registration Certificate dated 28. 07. 1998 marked P33, form 48 under the Company’s Act dated 11. 12. 1995, 10. 06. 1996 and 24. 01. 1998 marked P34, P35 and P36 respectively which give the particulars of the Directors and the Secretaries of the Company. The petitioner alleges that the 1st respondent while holding the office of the Member of Parliament, has entered into various contracts with the Government Institutions to supply dental equipment and material. It is the position of the petitioner that 1st respondent’s partnership business M/s Senaratne Denial Supplies and his company Senaratne Dental Supplies (Pvt) Ltd. have entered into these contracts. In proof the petitioner has marked and produced several documents to show that the 1st respondent’s partnership and his company have entered into eight contracts with Government Institutions and briefly they are as follows: i The Ist respondent’s partnership has entered into a contract dated 16. 11. 1995 on behalf of M/s Suz-Dent (India) Pvt. Ltd. with the Ministiy of Health, Highways and Social Services to supply 25 Nos. dental units with Hydraulic Chair and Micro with certain other accessories. The contract document has been marked P5 and certain supporting documents leading to the signing of the said contract have been produced. These documents are the letter dated 09. 11. 1995 marked P2, written by the 1st respondent as the Managing Director of his partnership to the Ministiy of Health relating to the award of the said tender, the proforma invoice bearing No. SDS/321/95

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