Legal battle over Kandy Budget

The Kandy Muncipal Council (KMC) Budget for this year passed last month in the council with the Opposition boycotting the vote, has been challenged in Courts amidst claims that the Budget was not presented according to law and violated the rights of rate payers.

The annual Budget of the UNP-controlled KMC which was passed in December has been challenged in the Kandy High Court on the grounds that the Budget was not presented in accordance with the law and violated the ratepayers’ right to make their observations on the draft Budget thereby depriving them the opportunity provided in the Municipal Ordinance.

Kandy High Court Judge D.S.C.Lekamwasam reserved his order in the case where the Opposition Members (PA) of the Kandy Municipal Council are seeking an interim order from the High Court by way of a Writ of Mandamus and a Writ of Certiorari to restrain the Kandy Municipal Council or its officers spending the monies allocated in the 2008 Budget. The petitioners are seeking an interim order until the final determination of the case.

The petitioners state that the Budget as presented was in contravention of Sections 211, 212 and 213 of the Municipal Council Ordinance. In another petition filed in the High Court by the Mahanuwara Ratepayers Association citing Mayor L.B.Aluvihare, Council Members, the Local Government Commissioner, Municipal Commissioner, the Secretary and the Attorney General, the Association is seeking a Writ of Mandamus for presenting the Budget in violation of the provisions of Sections 211 and 212 of the Municipal Ordinance.

The Association for the Protection of Public Property too has filed a case in the High Court seeking an interim order on the the Kandy Municipal Council, where it alleges that the provisions of the Municipal Ordinance had been violated. The latter cases are to be heard on January 8 in the High Court. These cases were filed after the Opposition walked out on Budget Day.

The Budget ran into a storm when it was alleged that the Mayor had violated the provisions of the Municipal Council Ordinance. The Opposition which raised a point of order, walked out when the Mayor announced that, nevertheless, he was presenting the Budget for 2008. Without an Opposition, the Budget was passed with the ruling UNP members only voting for the Budget.

Opposition senior lawyer M.P.Jayasinghe said on the Budget Day the provisions of the Municipal Ordinance were violated by not giving the ratepayers a right to express their views as provided by law before it was presented to the Council. He said that according to Section 211,212 and 213, read together provides for the public or ratepayers to scrutinize the Budget, within seven days of an announcement of the intention to present a Budget, after the notice is published in the Gazette. He said that the ratepayers have a right to review the draft Budget.

Councillor Jayasinghe said that, no doubt, the provisions of presenting the draft Budget to the five standing committees have been acted upon as also the publishing of the notice of the draft Budget being open to the ratepayers. However, he alleged that the seven days naming the first day and the last day has not been published in the newspaper publication or the Gazette as provided by law.

This, he said, was a violation of the provisions of the Municipal Ordinance and sought from the Mayor an alternative solution. The Council sittings were suspended for 15 minutes and the Mayor said that he would announce his decision. Opposition Leader Thilini Tennakoon said it was not only a violation of the ordinance, but also the suppression of the right of the ratepayers. He said the ratepayers have a right to voice their sentiments on the Budget and also express their views on any discrepancies.

However, after resumption of the Council,,the Mayor announced that he was presenting the Budget and that the publication was in order as the publication was on December 13 and seven days had since passed, according to the Ordinance. The Budget, showing a surplus of Rs 118,000, was then passed.

High Court Judge Lekamwasam reserved his order on the application for January 10. Attorney Lal Wijenaike with Attorney Gamini Herath, Attorney Shantha Ratnayake with Attorney Charmaine Wickremanayake, Attorney Priyantha Wickramasinghe with Attorney Charmaine Wickramanayake appeared for the petitioners.