Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1999%20Vol.1-P1&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:16:08+00:00

Document:
NOVEMBER 18, AND 19, 1998.
18A of the Law - Articles 13 (3), 81, 89, 91 and 140 of the Constitution - Section 22 of the Interpretation Ordinance.
Law and disqualified from being elected to Parliament for 7 years in terms of Articles 89 and 91 of the Constitution.
Commission recommended that the petitioner be subjected to civic disability.
(c) that the report of the Commission was not amenable to judicial review.
against him from the report of the Commission after its publication as a sessional paper.
jurisdiction on the Supreme Court. That jurisdiction is unfettered.
contemplates the exercise of judicial review by the Superior Courts over Commissions appointed under the Law.
the primary function of an independent judiciary'.
'convict' any person of any offence. That power is vested in the Supreme Court - section 10 (1) of the Law.
petitioner a right of hearing in breach of the principles of natural justice.
impractical judge' but also act fairly".
1. Bandaranaike v. Weeraratne and two others (1978-1979) 2 Sri LR 412.
2. Weeraratne v. Hon. Percy Colin-Thome' and Three Others (1988) 2 Sri LR 151.
3. Wickramabandu v. Herath and Others (1990) 2 Sri LR 348.
4. Visuvalingam and Others v Liyanage and Others (1984) 2 Sri LR 123.
5. Hopman and Others v. Minister of Lands and Land Development and Others (1994) 2 Sri LR 240 at 247.
6. Atapattu and Others v. Peoples Bank (1997) 1 Sri LR 208.
7. Goonesinha v. De Kretser (1944) 46 NLR 107.
8. K Nakkuda Ali v. Jayaratne (1950) 51 NLR 457.
9. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1947) 2 ALL ER 680.
10. CCSU v. Minister for the Civil Service (1984) 3 ALL ER 935 at 951.
1 KB 171 at 205.
12. De Mel v. De Silva (1949) 51 NLR 105.
13. Dias v. Abeywardene (1966) 68 NLR 409.
14. Fernando v. Jayaratne (1974) 78 NLR 123.
15. (a) Ratnagopal v. The Attorney-General (1969) 72 NLR 145.
15.(b) Ratnagopal v. The Attorney-General (1968) 70 NLR 409.
16. Silva and Others v. Sadique and Others (1978-79-80) 1 Sri LR 166 (5JJ).
17. Mendis, Fowzie and Others v. Goonewardena and Silva (1978-1979) 2 Sri LR 322.
18. Selvarajan v. Race Relations Board (1976) 1 ALL ER 12.
19. Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Hosenball (1977) 3 ALL ER 452 (1977) 1 WLR 766.
20. Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union and Others (1971 2 QB 175).
21. CHVT Ltd. v. Price Commission 1976 ICR 170 at 179.
22. Chief Constable of North Wales Police v. Evans - 1982 1 WLR 1155.
23. Daganayasi v. Minister of Immigration 1980 2 NZLR 130.
24. R. v. Secretary of Trade, ex parte Perestrello 1981 QB 19.
25. McInnes v. Onslow-Fane 1978 1 WLR 1520.
26. R. v. Liverpool Corporation ex parte Taxi Fleet Operators' Association (1972) 2 B 299.
27. R. v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Lain (1967) 2 ALL ER 770 at 777-778.
28. In re Pergamon Press Ltd. (1970) 3 ALL ER 535 at 539.
29. Re Grosvenor and West End Railways Terminus Hotel Ltd. (1897) 76 LT 337.
30. Hearts of Oak Assuarance Company Ltd. v. AG 1932 AC 392, 1932 ALL ER 732.
31. Wiseman v. Bomeman 1969 3 ALL ER 275, 1969 3 WLR 706.
32. Re SBA Proprties Ltd. - 1967 2 ALL ER 615 1967 1 WLR 799.
33. R. v. Gaming Board for Great Britain ex parte Benaim 1970 2 ALL ER 528 1970 2 WLR 1009.
34. Russel v. Duke of Norfolk (1949) 1 ALL ER 109.
35. Premachandra v. Major Montague Jayawickrema and Another (1994) 2 Sri LR 90 at 102.
36. Karunathilleke v. Ameen (1943) 44 NLR 213.
37. Re U. N. Wijetunga (1976) 70 NLR 515.
38. Bandaranaike v. de Alwis (1982) 2 Sri LR 664 at 673.
39. Mohan v. Air New Zealand (1984) ALL ER 201.
40. R. v. Deputy Industrial Injuries CMR, Ex P. Moore (1965) 1 ALL ER 81.
APPLICATION for a writ of certiorari against the Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry.
Warnakulasuriya,Methsiri Cooray, V. K. Choksy and K. Wijetunga for petitioner.
Wijedasa Rajapaksa with Tilaka-Bandara Waduressa, Nihal Bamunuarachchi, Dhammika Abeygunawardena, Kapila Liyanagamage and S.
A. Sripathi for the 1st and 2nd respondents.
Kolitha Dharmawardena, DSG with Harsha Fernando SC, for the 3rd respondent.
Law, as the 1st respondent commissioner was a Judge of the Supreme Court when he was appointed to the commission.
other two commissioners resigned some time thereafter and the 2nd respondent was appointed commissioner.
William Athulathmudali despite repeated requests by him, for such security".
was required. These documents are valueless.
Ragunathan's death, a fraudulent act to subvert the course of justice and he (sic) should besubjecttocivicdisability.
But this result has already taken place by operation of law (ie) by reason of his conviction for contempt of thecommission.
offences are conspiracy with others to commit murder, and abetment of the offence of murder".
natural justice and contrary to the mandatory provisions of section 16 of the SPCI Law.
law. The petition was filed on 19th of May, 1998 and we are of the view that there was no delay inmakingtheapplication.
therefore the commission's report was adequate for exercising judicial review.
before proceeding to consider (a) the determination on contempt and (b) the findings on conspiracy tomurderthelateMr.
Athulathmudali and other matters, concerning the petitioner reached by the commission.
court of First Instance or tribunal or other institution or any other person.
Court and not by the Court of Appeal.
nullify the effect of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Bandaranaike v. Weeraratne and two others(1).
Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal shall not have or exercise any power or jurisdiction to deal with such application.
It is seen that the provisions of the above subsection are referable to the proviso to the Article 140 oftheConstitution.
Provisions Act, No. 2 of 1980).
and conclusive, and shall not be called in question in any court or tribunal by way of writ or otherwise".
jurisdiction, such court may make "
"(a) where the order, etc., is ex facie not within the power conferred on such person, authority, etc.
Appeal is satisfied that there has been no such conformity or compliance".
(supra) or in Weeraratne v. Hon. Percy Colin-Thome and three others(2).
validity of such Act on any ground whatsoever.
it was held that the constitutional provisions being the higher norm, must prevail over theordinarystatutoryprovisions.
used, as in Article 138 (1).
Amendment Act No. 4 of 1978 as contemplated by Articles 80 (3). The Constitutional provision must prevailovernormallaw.
For the reasons stated above I hold that the jurisdiction conferred on this court by Article 140 is unfettered.
proposition admits of no controversy.
"irrationality" namely Wednesbury unreasonableness (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v.WednesburyCorporation(9).
"proportionality". See Lord Diplock in CCSU v. Minister for the Civil Service(10) at 951.
Amenability of the Commission's report to judicial review.
they are subject to the controlling jurisdiction of the Kings Bench Division exercised in these writs".
may be based on the findings contained in the reportthe report did not take effect proprio vigore.
Over the years frontiers of Lord Atkin's formula in Electricity Commissioners case have been advanced by judicialdecisions.
Selvarajan v. Race Relations Board(18) R. v. Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parteHosenball(19) andBreenv.
Amalgamated Engineering Union and others(20).
precise meaning except when used as a synonym for natural justice".
as was done in Wiseman v. Borneman(31).
accuse somethey may condemn othersthey may ruin reputations or careers. Their report may leadtojudicialproceedings.
Great Britain, ex parte Benaim(33).
reason why the law casts on the commissioners a duty to act fairly.
accordingly decided that we should not at our inquiry admit the confession as an item of evidence against Mr. de Zoysa."
might be inadmissible in civil or criminal proceedings'. As I have stated earlier, this is mainly a fact-findingcommission.
independent evidence is a matter of great importance".
Findings by the Commission on the offence of contempt.
affected by determinations and decisions of commissions to be heard and to be represented by lawyers.
man to be his own accuser or to give any testimony against himself. See also Karunatilleke v. Ameen(36).
contempt against, or in disrespect of the commission. (The proviso to that subsection relates to othertypesofcontempt).
facts stated in the determination (subsection 12 (3)).
disqualified to be an elector he is disqualified to be elected as a Member of Parliament.
newspaper report and not to the proceedings is both suspicious and suggestive".
Please attend the office of the commission on Friday 9th August so that your statement may be recorded in the 1st instance".
evidence. Even if that was possible, such a communication was no summons.
informing you that you are entitled to representation by Attorneys-at-law.
to you was received at your residence No. 226, Lake Drive, Colombo 8.
And, whereas your son Mr. Ajith Cooray has informed the commission that you are abroad.
wife Srimathi and your son B. M. Prasanna Cooray for one month's vacation to Hongkong.
United States of America and that you are moving from place to place in India where he met you in New Delhi.
These are therefore to command you to be present and appear in person on 9. 1. 1997 at 11 am before the commission".
This document can neither be construed as a summons to a witness "to attend any meeting of the commission togiveevidence"
whereas he was required to be present in person".
and therefore the warrant too was flawed.
conviction . . . This result the commission considers to be in the nature of a punishment". (page 212).
unlawful and unacceptable in law.
and other decisions leading to the recommendation that the petitioner be made subject to civic disability.
of them all". That right should not be lightly interfered with.
"convict" the petitioner of contempt.
(a) that President Premadasa found him a loyal ally, one who co-operates with and supports and helps him.
(c) being badly defeated by Athulathmudali in the number of preferential votes cast in the ColombodistrictwhichwasMr.
motives to get Athulathmudali out of the way.
Premadasa's premises named "Sucharitha" in Keselwatta.
all the elaborate planning and all the lies and deception that has unfolded? Deception has beenaparamountconsideration!
to what length they have gone to falsly implicate the LTTE.
this over and over again, physical attacks and a police cover-up.
up to simulate a case of suicide. These are compelling and irresistable inferences we draw from established circumstances".
(3) made up a false scenario in respect of Ragunathan's deatha fraudulant act to subvert the course of justice.
same silence, the petitioner was not entitled to and the commissioners evinced a great anxiety to examine him asawitness.
or at least well-guardedfor they cloud the mind . . ."
and in breach of the provisions of section 16 of the SPCI Law.
of (1) above are unacceptable, on the basis of their finding as at (3) above.
GUNAWARDANA, J. - I agree.
WEERASEKERA, J. - I agree.
Application allowed - certiorari issued.

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