Bhaila files action against SLMC, UNP

by Sarath Malalasekera

Member of Parliament Hussein Ahamed Bhaila has filed action before the Supreme Court against the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, its leader, UNP, its leader and four others to determine that the purported expulsion of the petitioner from the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress is null and avoid and no force or avail in law and invalid.

Bhaila filed action through his lawyer Chithral Jayantha de Silva states to declare that he, has not ceased to be a Member of Parliament, to set aside the said purported expulsion and to declare that he continues to be and remains a Member of Parliament.

Bhaila cited the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, its leader Rauf Hakeem, Secretary General of the United National Party, its leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, General Secretary, Elections Commissioner Dayananda Dissanayake and Parliament Secretary General Priyani Wijesekera as respondents.

Bhaila states that the first respondent, the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress has a large number of members who have a common interest in respect of this application.

However it is not practicable to make all members respondents to this application.

Therefore, the petitioner seeks Court permission to institute this application against the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress Leader and its Secretary General as well as representatives of the Muslim Congress and give notice of this application to the other members of the Muslim Congress in an appropriate manner as may be determined by Court.

The petitioner states: "The 7th respondent is the Commissioner of Elections and the 8th respondent is the Secretary General of Parliament.

The petitioner states that for a long period he had been a member of the 1st respondent party. However as a result of some misunderstandings among himself and the 2nd respondent he was compelled to resign from the 1st respondent party.

The petitioner states that the 3rd Respondent by letter dated October 23, 2003 accepted his resignation.

The petitioner states that thereafter he and the 2nd respondent sorted out the said misunderstandings to a great extent and since then he worked for the 1st respondent party without being a member.

The Petitioner states that: He belongs to the Memon community, which has a population of around 9,000 in the country. Before the Parliamentary General Elections April 2, 2004 the 4th respondent party submitted a List of Persons under Article 99A of the Constitution to the 7th respondent and his name was also included in the said List; In proof of the same a true copy of the Extraordinary Gazette bearing No. 1329/10 and dated February 24, 2004 published by the 7th respondent is annexed hereto marked as "P5" and pleaded as part and parcel hereof.

After the said General Elections, under and in terms of Article 99A of the Constitution, he was nominated by the then General Secretary of the 4th respondent party to be declared elected as a Member of Parliament.

The petitioner states that as he has been given only a day to reply the said purported charges contained in the letter on May 29, 2004 the petitioner addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent and requested for further two weeks to reply the letter.

In the letter the petitioner stated inter alia that, "I regret the insufficient time period i.e. one day, given to reply the said letter."

In the evening of the same day, the Petitioner received a reply from the 3rd respondent by which he was requested to show cause in respect of the said charges before 12 noon the following day, May 30, 2004."