Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1981%20Vol.2-P147&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:13:30+00:00

Document:
RANASINGHE, J. AND VICTOR PERERA, J.
C.A. L/A APPLICATION 20/81 -D. C. COLOMBO 14125/L.
C. A. APPLICATION 211/81 - D. C. COLOMBO 14125/L.
(1) ( g ), 54, 61, 77, 125, 134, 169 (12).
owned in excess of the ceiling in the Commission.
Officer of the Land Reform Commission. The Court of Appeal reserved judgment on the preliminary objection.
the Court of Appeal only in that capacity. The preliminary objection must be upheld.
the State or any other person for whom he could appear in his official capacity as the Attorney-General.
(3) Judicial Power of the People.
(1) Dahanayake v. D. G. Albert de Silva et. al., (1978-79) 1 Sri L. R. 41.
(2) Trendtex Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, (1976) 1 W. L. R. 868(1976) 3 All E. R.437 (1977)Q.
(3) Trendtex Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, (1977) 1 All E. R. 881(1977) 2 W L R. 356 (CA).
(4) Le Mesurier v. Layard, (1898) 3 N. L. R. 227.
(5) Re Moragodalianage Peris Perera, (1880) 3 S. C. C. 161.
(6) Perera v. White, (1900) 4 N. L. R. 209.
(7) Vettivelu v. Wijeyeratne, (1956) 60 N. L. R. 442.
(8) O'Toole v. Scott, (1965) 2 All E. R. 240(1965) A.C. 939(1965) 2 W. L. R. 1160.
(9) Collier v. Hicks, (1831) 2 B. and Ad. 663.
(10)Simms v. Moore, (1970) 3 All E. R. 1(1970) 2 W.L.R. 1099.
(11)Re S. (a barrister), (1969) 1 All E.R. 949: (1969) 2 W.L.R. 708.
(12)Attorney-General of Gambia v. N'Jie, (1961) 2 All E.R. 504 60 C.L.W. 71(1961) A. C. 617(1961) 2 W.L.R. 845.
(13)Frazer v. Queen's Advocate, (1863-68) Ram. Reps. 316.
(14) D. M. Jayawardena v. Juanis Fernando, (1881) 4 S.C. C. 77.
(15)Attorney -General v. Don Sirisena, (1968) 70 N.L.R. 347.
(16)Attorney-General v. E. P. Samarakkody and Another, (1955) 57 N.L.R. 412.
(17)Attorney -General v. Saibo, (1912) 15 N.L.R. 204.
(18)Le Mesurier v. The Attorney -General, (1906) 10 N.L.R. 67.
APPLICATIONS for leave to appeal from and to revise an order of the District Court, Colombo.
Shiva Pasupati, with K. M. M. B. Kulatunga and Suri Ratnapala, for the defendant-petitioner.
of the said estates until the hearing and the determination of this action.
was made by the learned Additional District Judge on 20.2.81 refusing the said application.
Application No. 211/81 to have the said order, dated 20.1.81, revised by this Court.
however, is not relevant at this stage, but which would be referred to by me at a later stage of this order.
appear in his official capacity, if and when he seeks to appear before the court in any other capacity.
himself and the proper professional disciplinary authority, and is not a matter for consideration by this Court.
capacity and that so long as there is no such legal impediment this Court cannot and should not deny him a hearing.
in reply to Mr. Jayewardene, Q.C. cite the judgment of His Lordship the Chief Justice in the caseofDahanayakev,D.G.
in his personal capacity. Hence I do not think that this matter should detain me any further.
high constitutional policy, on which the Cabinet as such require advice".
or the Solicitor General. (Secs. 33 (2) and 34 (2) ).
all matters before the Constitutional Court (Article 63).
the Speaker, and of Election Petitions (Article 134).
any crime or offence declared punishable by fine or imprisonment, may be initiated (Sec. 51).
Corporation or of the Police to attend his office with the necessary books and documents for certain specific purposes(Sec.
Acts Nos. 15 of 1978 and 54 of 1980.
sections 556 (2), 572 (2), 575 (1).
enrolment, he has to make the Attorney-General a respondent to his application.
sittings of the Supreme Court: presided over meetings of the Bar Council.
duties and discharge the functions" of his office "in accordance with the Constitution .... and the law."
official capacity, and that the said constraints the Court itself, should take cognizance of.
would not carry with it even the slightest hint of it being anything but strictly impartial.
earliest case in the list is a case in 1880 the latest is one in 1915. No case thereafter has beenbroughttoournotice.
Considerable reliance was also placed by Mr. Pasupathionthetwocasesof:Pererav.White(6),andVettiveluv.
to an era long prior to the Constitution of 1978.
permit to appear before then-L Even so, the judges retained to themselves the supervisory powers in respect of them.
judges, must have the power to regulate the proceedings of their own Courts"
any, and what persons, to act as advocates before them".
advocates before them. O'Toole's case (supra) was quoted with approval in the later case of Simms v. Moore (10).
much shorter time, so far as solicitors are concerned to the Law Society."
with the intentions of the Legislature."
of the Judicature Act, No. 2 of 1978, in support of his contention.
extended only to "a person charged with an offence."
able to exercise either the right to represent another before a court of law or the right to be heard before a court oflaw.
such a provision of law.
in their courts as referred to earlier. Nor could they be said to be incompatible with such an inherent right.
of the said office should be heard by this court only in his capacity as the said Attorney-General.
dispute was thus one strictly between the company and the Land Reform Commission.
When the matter was taken up before us on the 5th March, 1981, Mr. S. Pasupathy,theAttorney-General,Mr.K.M.M.B.
filed his proxy on behalf of the Commission.
Mr. H. W.. Jayewardene, Q.C., Mr. C. Ranganathan, Q.C., M r. H. L. de Silva, Mr. K. N. Choksy, Mr. Romesh de Silva,andMr.
Officer and employee of the petitioner.
Mr. Pasupathy appearing in his private capacity in a purely civil dispute between two parties.
deeply concerned with the interests and traditions of the legal profession.
he has to look after by virtue of his office.
We therefore decided to hear submissions on this preliminary objection on behalf of both parties.
should take note of and must uphold in the interests of the Administration of Justice.
may now be brought against the Attorney-General."
the party sued was the Government of Ceylon.
to give evidence in any court in the Island instituted by or against that officer in his official capacity."
court referred to as the Queen's Advocate's Roll.
Dutch Law to sue the Advocate of the Fiscal, now styled the Queen's Advocate for recovery of their money."
series of years is not open to controversy."
as a party was nothing but as such representative, particularly in a civil action.
the Report of the Special Commission on the Constitution (1928) under the Chairmanship of Rt. Hon. The EarlofDonoughmore.
the examination of contracts and the preparation of legal documents.
Secretariat in obstructing the free flow of public business."
legal proceedings, and (d) matters of high constitutional policy, on which the Cabinet as such may require advice."
appointments, transfers to the office of Attorney-General shall be made by the Governor-General.
General to the Public Service.
transfer involving an increase in salary.
Constitution to render invalid and illegal the continued exercise of those powers."
was necessary before an appeal against an acquittal was filed.
proceedings. (The Attorney-General v. E. P Samarakkody and W. Dahanayake (16).
independently. This gave him a very important and responsible role in the legislative process.
was the principal Law officer of the Republic and adviser to the State.
the displacement of the Crown.
State. His rights of audience in Court could not be considered merely from the point of view that he isanattorney-at-law.
referred to Chapter IX which dealt with the Executive under the sub-head "Public Service".
The officers so appointed become full-time members of the Public Service.
Constitution. He was the Head of a department, and was the principal Law Officer of the State.
jurisdiction under Article 129 (1).
therefore of necessity to be available at all times to perform these duties.
or established by law. The Attorney-General thus became the instrument used in the exercise of this power.
(3)Judicial Power of the People.
General powers to elect the court for the prosecution of a criminal case.
The Criminal Procedure Act, No. 15 of 1979, imposes specific duties and grants verywidepowerstotheAttorney-General.
General shall be entitled to appear and conduct the prosecution in a prosecution in the Magistrate's Court in summarycases.
Solicitor-General or by an appropriate appointee of the Attorney-General.
the action against a Minister, Parliamentary Secretary or Public Officer, he has to become a party to the action. By ActNo.
48 of 1954 in section 463thewords'governmentundertakes'weresubstitutedtoread'Attorney-Generalundertakes'.
Therefore he appears in court as the Attorney-General and not as a pleader on for or on behalf of the party concerned.
obligations to the Judiciary which latter duties bring him close to the Judicial officers.
at-law with his other colleagues who too were appearing with him in their private capacitiesinstructedbyMr.P.K.T.
and includes an Order in Council".
Head of the state. But he did not seem to rely heavily on such direction.
private capacity as any other attorney-at-law.
and was a case filed by Mr. White, the Acting Mayor of the Municipal Council for damages for anallegedlibelbyoneMr.
him or to any of the Crown Counsel".
in order to be able to advise the Crown.
action against the petitioner who was a Village Headman for recovery of damages in the District Court ofVavuniyaCaseNo.
affected by reason of the fact that he happens to be an officer of the Attorney- General's Department.
disentitle him from assigning Crown Counsel to appear for a defendant who is a Public Officer.
up their defence, but the Attorney-General instructs a Crown Counsel to appear for them. "
No objection could be taken to that practice".
but a constraint attached to their office.
the basis that he was an attorney-at-law.
appear, plead and act for the State only as Attorney-General and not as a private attorney-at-law.
but if costs are not awarded or recovered, Crown Counsel gets nothing for his services beyond hisregularofficialsalary.
were payable to the Public Treasury."
into the pocket of the advocate engaged in the case."
have the same relationship of lawyer and client with such an agency as the interests of the State were involved.
his office as Attorney-General demands the devotion of his entire time to the interests of the People.
limits his fundamental rights are unaffected.
and is in that sense an officer of the Public.
the Attorney-General nor the Solicitor-General may engage in private practice.
entitled to practice and who holds, himself out as ready to do so not being otherwise employed in a whole time occupation. "
of the conditions of service binding on them.
refuse to hear him. Thus the court has an inherent jurisdiction to see that proceedingsbefore it are regularly conducted.
exercise a discretion whether they will allow any, and what persons, to act as advocates before them.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

Application No. 211
 v. 
 v.