CricInfo Home
News Home

NEWS FOCUS
Rsa in Pak
NZ in India
Zim in Aus

Domestic
Other Series

Mr. A. W. A. Salam, District Judge of Colombo, yesterday reserved the order in connection with the Enjoining Order issued on the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka for April 26.

The Enjoining Order was also re extended till the 26. The order was sequel to an exparte petition by Mr. Clifford Ratwatte, a rival candidate for the BCCSL Presidency challenging the mode of election of the present office bearers at the AGM held on March 28.

The order restrained the President of the BCCSL, Mr. Thilanga Sumathipala and 11 others of its Ex-co body from functioning as office bearers of the Board until a determination is made by. Among other matters the petitioner sought a declaration by court that the perpetrated AGM of the BCCSL held recently as null and void and to restrain the new office bearers from carrying out the functions of the BCCSL until the ending of the hearing.

The court earlier dismissed a motion filed on behalf of the dependants praying that they be granted an opportunity to be heard prior to issuing any orders.

Overruling the motion the Judge Salam said ``when a case is fixed for order it is not proper to adopt such procedures and to allow the parties to make submissions prior to delivery of the order. This was contrary to procedures and traditions adopted hither to''.

Mr. Romesh de Silva, PC, senior counsel for the plaintiff Mr. Clifford Ratwatte, making further submissions in support of extending the Enjoining Order against BCCSL said that there was material to prove that the election held was prima facie illegal and wrongful.

There was pandemonium impersonation, presence of unauthorised persons inside the premises and unknown people had even exhibited fire arms to intimidate the voters.

On the question of mandate he argued that by means of affidavits submitted to court it was evident that the plaintiff had the support of 59 members of controlling clubs.

Dealing with the instances of violence and thuggery he alleged that the president Thilanga Sumathipala had got up from the chair to assault a senior vice president Abu Fuard.

Referring to Badulla and Kalutara districts mandatory votes, he said the Board had arbitrarily and wrongfully suspended their memberships solely to prevent the plaintiff from being elected the president of the new board. The Counsel cited an affidavit by Mr. Upali Dharmadasa which stated that Peterson Lane Sports Club, Kollupitiya and another had also mandated to vote for the plaintiff.

The Counsel also cited documents indicating that the petitioner had mandate from 59 clubs and that the defendants had not made any objections to this position.

Mr. Romesh de Silva further pointed out that 28 specimen signatures and the ones that were seen on the sheet signed at the entrance on the day of the AGM too differred vastly.

He further argued that by selective introduction of documents the defendants tried to give a wrong portrayal to court about the violence that took place. He said only a part of the Daily News article on the issue had been submitted by the defendants when in fact the paper had carried balanced news reports side by side.

He said in the news report Thilanga Sumathipala himself had expressed that he was shocked by the incident and that was enough proof of violence prevailed.

The reform the plaintiff had prima facie established that there was violence and thuggery, intimidation and unruly behaviour.

In such an atmosphere no election can be treated as free and fair.

Since the chief executive could attend to urgent business the Enjoining Order would not affect the World Cup series, he concluded.

Mr. S. L. Gunasekera in reply to the arguments made on behalf of the plaintiff said court should not re-extend an Enjoining Order unless there was strong prima facie evidence.

He said this was not an issue merely between two people but an issue with utmost national concern and interest especially the Sri Lankan team who were world champions had to face the challenge with confidence.

The Counsel said as per Board's Constitution unless the BCCSL functioned the entire organisation becomes crippled. Although the plaintiff said the Chief Executive could operate it was neither practical nor constitutional.

Referring to the mandate given by three city clubs as stated in an affidavit the counsel said it had no legal validity.

On the issue of 28 specimen signatures, he said no one had been debarred from entering the meeting. In fact there was no regulation laid down to show with regard to the specimen signatures with regard to the mandate given to representatives he said the affidavits were irrelevant because it was the representative he finally decided to vote the candidate of his choice.

The counsel submitted that the affidavit made on behalf of the plaintiff said that the outside trouble makers were not allowed to enter the hall and therefore there was control.

In any case the plaintiffs submission that 69 had mandated to vote in his favour was incorrect. On perusal of submissions he pointed out that even if plaintiff's submissions were taken to consideration he had the mandate of only 51 votes.

At this stage the court reserved the order for the 26.

Mr. Romesh de Silva PC with Palitha Kumarasinghe, Harsha Amaresekera instructed by G.G. Arulpragasam appeared for the plaintiff Clifford Ratwatte.

L.C. Seneviratne PC with S.L. Gunasekera, Ronald Perera, Hemaka de Alwis instructed by Chandana Perera appeared for Thilanga Sumathipala and 11 others.

Mr. Hiran de Alwis appeared for 2nd, 3rd and 13 defendants.