Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1978-79%20Vol.2-P-322&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:47:28+00:00

Document:
AUGUST 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, AND 20, 1979.
is prohibited by Article 80(3) of the Constitution ?
the persons affected by the said laws seeking certiorari to quash the findings of the two Commissioners relating to them.
discretion to issue a writ which will be futile ?
acts in excess of its legal authority it will be subject to the controlling writ jurisdiction of the Court.
which have never been closed.
arbitrarily or capriciously. The Commissioners had a duty to act fairly by observing the rules of natural justice.
Accordingly the Commissioners were amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court.
then be no finding of the Commissioners (which is one of the requisites of the definition of relevantperson)againsthim.
Hence the issue of the writ will not be futile.
not touch the question of the validity of the laws in any manner whatsoever.
 2 QB 864, 882, 888.
8. R. v. London County Council (1931) 100 L.J. K.B 760.
10. Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar AIR 1958 SC 538.
11. R v. Statutory Visitors, St. Lawrence Hospital Caterham ex p. Pritchard  2 AllER 766, 773.
12. Packer v. Packer  L. R. P. 15, 22.
13. N. Q. Dias v. C. P. G. Abeywardena (1966) 68 NLR 409, 411.
14. Jayawardena v. Silva (1970) 73 N L R 289 (P.C.).
15. Pearlberg v. Varty  2 All ER 6.
16. Wiseman v. Borneman  AC 297, 308.
17. In re Ratnagopal (1968) 70 NLR 409.
18. Ratnagopal v. The Attorney-General (1969) 72 NLR 145.
19.Fernando v. Jayaratne (1974) 78 NLR 123, 126, 130.
22. R v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Tong (1975) 3 All ER 678, 679 (Q. B. D.).
23. Ex parte Tong (1977) 1 All ER 171, 175 (AC).
24. Nakkuda Ali v. Jayaratne (1950) 51 NLR 457, 460, 463 (PC).
25. R v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner ex parte Parker (1953) 1 WLR 1150.
26. R v. Gaming Board for Great Britain, ex p. Benaim and Khaida [19701 2 All ER 528, 533, 2 QB 417, 430.
28. In re Pergamon Press  3 All ER 535, 539.
29. Fisher v. Keane (1880) 49 LJR 11, 16(1878) 11 Ch. D. 353.
30. Subramaniam v. Inspector of Police, Kankesanturai (1968) 71 NLR 204, 209, 210.
31. Schmidt v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs 2 Ch. 149.
32. R v. McArthur ex P. Cornish (1966) Tas. S R. 157.
33. A. K. Ktipak v. Union of India AIR 1970 S C. 150, 154.
34. R v. London Country Council ex p. Commercial Gas Co. (1895) 11 T. L. R. 337.
35. Jaganath Rao v. State of Orissa AIR 1969 SC 215.
36. Sammbu Nath Jha v. Kedar Prasad Singha AIR 1972 SC 1215.
37. Lockwood v. The Commonwealth and others (1953-1954) 90 CLR 177.
39. Rola Co. (Australia) Pty Ltd. v. The Commonwealth (1944-45) CLR 185, 203, 204.
40. Allen Berry & Co. v. Vivian Bose AIR 1960 Punjab 86.
41. R v. Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly ex p. Haynes Smith  lK. B 411, 415.
42. Dayaratne v. Bandara S C. Application No. 924/77 - S C. Minutes of 28.11.1978.
43. R v. Willington (London Borough) ex party Royce Homes Ltd.  2 All ER 643, 648.
44. R v. Hull Prison Board of Visitors 2 All ER 198, 202.
45. Maradana Mosque Trustees v. Mahmud  68 NLR 217.
46. R v. Paddington Valuation Officer 1. QB 380.
47R v. Chief Immigration Officer  lQB 333.
48. R v. Greater London Council, ex p. Blackburn  1 WLR 550.
49. Russel v. Duke of Norfolk (1949) 1All ER 109, 118.
50. Re H. K. (an Infant) [ 1967] 2 QB 617 2 W. L. R. 962(1967) 1 All ER 226.
51. Field General Court Martial (1915) 18 NL R 334, 336.
52. Dankoluwa Estates Co. Ltd. v. The Tea Controller (1941) 42 NLR 197, 206.
53. Thassim v. Edmund Rodrigo (1947) 48 NLR 121, 127.
54. Grenier's Reports[18731 P. 125.
55. Bennet v. Chappel and another  3 All ER 180.
56. British Railways Board v. Pickin  All ER 609, 618 (1975) AC 765.
57. Minister of Health v. Regem ex parte Yaffe (1931) All ER (Reprint) 343, 346.
58. Durayappah v. Fernando (1966) 69 NLR 265,270 (PC).
59. Jayawardena v. Silva (1969) 72 NL R 25 - see Case No. 14.
60. Attorney-General v. Chanmugam (1967) 71 NLR 78.
APPLICATIONS for Certiorari to quash findings of Commissions appointed under Commissions of Inquiry Act.
Kusum Dissanayake for petitioner in C. A. Appln. 669/78 C. Ranganathan, Q.C. for respondent.
C. Ranganathan, Q.C. for respondent.
H. L. de Silva with E. D. Wickremanayake for petitioner in C. A. Appln. 693/78.
A. L. Britto Muthunayagam and Ronald Perera for respondent.
V. S A. Pullenayagam with Neelan Tiruchelvam, (Mrs) S. Gnanakaran and N. Y.CasieChettyforpetitionerinC.A.Appln.
J. W. Subasinghe with K. Sivanandan for respondent.
Nimal Senanayake with Nalin Abeynaike for petitioner in C.A. Appln. 924/78.
C. Ranganathan, Q.C. with K. Sivanandan for respondent.
Walter Perera for petitioner in C.A. Appln. 1064/78.
C. Ranganathan, Q. C. with K. Sivanandan for respondent.
J. W. Subasinghe with G. F. Sethukavalar and K. Sivanandan for respondent.
E. D. Wickramanayake for petitioner in C.A. Appln. 750/78.
R. K. Suresh Chandra for petitioner in C. A. appln. 757/78.
K. N. Choksy with K. Kanag-Iswaran, Laksman de Alwis, A. L. Britto Muthunayagam and Ronald Perera for respondent.
E. D. Wickramanayake for petitioner in C. A. appln. 914/78.
Nimal Senanayake for petitioner in C. A. appln. 805/78.
K. Shanmugalingam for petitioner in C. A. appln. 912/78.
recommendations with reference to any of the other matters that had been inquired into under the terms of the warrant.
report on the conduct of the administration of certain Urban Councils and towns otherthanMunicipalities.Mr.G.P.A.
Final report dated 5th June 1978. Mr. S. W. Goonewardena submitted his report dated 31st May 1978.
out in their respective petitions.
These fifteen applications and four others originally came up before a Bench consisting of the PresidentandAtukorale,J.
accordingly whether this Court will in law issue the Writ in the exercise of its discretion.
decide and which we decide by this order and nothing more.
accordingly refused (De Mel v. M. W. H. de Silva(2).
these assumptions may turn out to be incorrect if the matter goes to trial, but cannot be challenged at this stage".
Division exercised in these writs".
the writ" and pointed out that "this definition has been approved in its entirety by the House of Lords, thePrivyCouncil.
particular case in which the problem arises.
but one which courts had forgotten when Atkin, L. J. spoke". (Administrative Law 4th Ed. pp 332, 333).
there must be a superadded duty to do so.
their powers". They did so for the purpose of exercising their writ jurisdiction or to issue declarations and injunctions.
they are subject to the controlling jurisdiction of the King's Bench Division exercised in these writs.
the Board had been set up by the executive in the exercise of the prerogative and that therefore it had a legal basis.
peer involves something which no subject may do" (pp. 204, 205).
Act though their duty to investigate and report emanated from their appointment by the President.
were vested with any legal authority to make findings or determinations.
relevant to their inquiry and report.
(3) the extent of their responsibility.
findings or determinations against persons responsible for the same.
against any persons. But this is riot such a case.
either of their own force or as a step in a statutory process affected the rights of subjects.
corruption in the administration of the affairs of the Councils and if so, the person or persons responsibleforthesame.
against any person who is .a member of a public body then in terms of the decisions of the Divisional Bench in De Melv.M.
W. H. de Sifira(1) (supra) the Commissioners would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
cases. So that on this ground alone the Commissioners would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
But it is necessary to deal with the position apart from this consideration as well. It was submitted that apart from theM.
anywhere. The law will stand still whilst the rest of the world goes on and that will be bad for both".
expected to make any order in his report affecting the legal rights of the petitioner."
observations in that case to be a satisfactory guide for the determination of the issues in these applications.
Commissioner's findings would have no legal effect on the rights of persons against whom findings were made.
determining whether there has been such unlawful interception is committed solely to the ordinary Courts."
hearings - Pearlberg v. Varty (15).
and would depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
observation of H.. N. G. .Fernando, C. J. - (Ratnagopal v. The A. G.(18).
-Rs. 500,000/- would have to be shared between Mr. Eric Fernando (the petitioner) and Mr. Dias Abeysinghe".
Corporation have, in view of the adverse findings contained in the respondent's report lost confidenceinthepetitioner".
affected the petitioner "grievously" did hot affect any rights of his.
petitioner's employment with the corporation was on a contractual basis and the relationship was one of masterandservant.
servant does not at all depend on whether the master has heard the servant in his own defence".
circumstances the remedy of certiorari was not - -available to such a teacher.
rights may be created or extinguished".
Ex pane Lain(6) (supra). Jayaratne s case (19) was the first case in which thisdecisionwasconsidered.Sharvananda,J.
omitting the words 'the rights of so that the phrase in which these words occur would read 'questions affecting subjects'".
in Atkin, L. J' s definition were legally enforceable or justifiable rights or not".
with the view expressed by Ashworth, J.
Court of Appeal however set aside the judgment and issued the writ.
unnecessary for me to consider them.
decision affects subjects adversely as Ashworth, J. and Lord Parker, C. J. put it.
the two decisions are open to serious doubt."
fairly, and the court will see that they do so"
investigate and report . . . . ., They do not even decide whether there is a prima facie case . . . . . . . . .
effect the report would have on the character and reputation of the persons concerned."
life without giving him an opportunity of defending or palliating his conduct".
inquiry and of the nature of the inquiries that are being made.
How else are such persons to know that they are the subject of inquiry and that adverse findings may bemadeagainstthem?
expressly conferred on them by the section.
In regard to this right to representation in a differentcontextWeeramantry,J.saidinthecaseofSubramaniamv.
persons the opportunity to be represented then they would be amenable to the Writ jurisdiction of this Court.
natural justice after informing the party of the case against him".
of natural justice. As Lord Parker, C.J. pointed out in ex parte Lain(6) (supra) '.' . . . .I cannot think thatAtkin,L.J.
intended to confine his principles to cases in which the determination affected rights in the sense ofenforceablerights."
annexed, They comprise an extensive range of legally recognised interests the categories of which havenever.beenclosed.
expectation of which it would not be fair to deprive him without hearing what he has to say".
had "no value" as against the petitioner, out of the way.
only with the case of re-consideration when a patient comes of ageandenablesthevisitorstoarriveatadecision.
records of the other eligible officers.
principles to cases in which the determination affected rights in the sense of enforceable rights" was quoted in extenso.
on the ground that the Company had not been given an opportunity to comment on the report.
whether the bodies concerned had a duty to act judicially.
different connotations. This distinction was clearly brought out by Rich, J. in the case of Role Co. (Australia) Pty Ltd.v.
commonly is, subject to a legal duty to act judicially (that is, to observe the principles of natural justice)".
the respondents as they deal with rights in an entirely different context.
liabilities of a person to whom it relates. . . . . . .
effects on the civic rights of individuals."
must be given effect to and not the findings or determinations of some other body or person.
disabilities on the said persons and the laws were enacted.
arise, now but ought properly to be decided when the individual applications are taken up.
bodies to which the writs could go. In the case of R. v. Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly (41)LordHewart,C.
ingredient which, if the test is to be satisfied must be present".
selection of the earlier authorities".
few defenders. I have referred to them all in the case of Dayaratne v. Bandara(42) and I do not wish to repeat them here.
been deterred by Atkin L. J. ''s reference to it being necessary for the body affected to have the dutytoactjudicially.
administrative matters, mostly concerned with questions of policy and involving no judicial element in the strict sense.
questions seriously affecting subjects in some right, interest, status, standing in society or somelegitimateexpectation.
to the restricted meaning he has given to the term "rights" as meaning legally enforceable rights.
conclusion that the Commissioner had a duty to act fairly by observing the rules of natural justice.
which the tribunal is acting, the subject matter to be dealt with and so forth". And Lord Parker, C. J. observed In Re H.K.
for a just decision on the facts of the case.
writ jurisdiction of this Court. I would accordingly answer the first question for our decision in the affirmative.
Appeal shall have full power and authority . . . .to grant and issue according to law orders in the nature of writs... . ..
. . .Similar power was given to the Supreme Court by the Courts Ordinance.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Application No. 924
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.