Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1992%20Vol.1-P286&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:17:59+00:00

Document:
31 JULY AND 01 AUGUST, 1991.
Societies (Special Provisions) Act, No. 34 of 1970: "
referred by the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court, under Article 125 of the Constitution.
Article 4(c) of the Constitution ?
the provisions of Article 114(1) of the Constitution.?
by the Registrar is a part of such institution.
Courts and the High Courts is (by virtue of Articles 107 and 111) outside the purview oftheJudicialServiceCommission.
1. Karunatillake v Abeyweera (1966) 68 NLR 503,504-5.
2. Jayasekera v. Minuwangoda Co-operative Society (1970) 73 NLR 354, 355, 356.
3. Bribery Commissioner v. Ranasinghe (1962) 64 NLR 449(1964) 66 NLR 73, 74 (PC).
4. R. v. Liyanage (1962) 64 NLR 313, 359.
5. Liyanage v. The Queen (1965) 68 NLR 265, 281, 283, (PC).
6. Senadhira (1961) 63 NLR 313.
7. Don Anthony (1962) 64 NLR 93.
8. Piyadasa (1962) 64 NLR 385.
9. Jailabdeen v. Danina Umma (1962) 64 NLR 419, 420, 421.
10. Ibrahim v G. A. Vavuniya (1966) 69 NLR 217.
11. Anthony Naide (1966) 68 NLR 558, 570.
12. Walker Sons & Co. Ltd. v Fry (1965) 68 NLR 73, 101.
13. Moosajees v. Fernando (1966) 68 NLR 414, 418, 424.
14. Panagoda v. Budinis Singho (1966) 68 NLR 490.
15. Xavier v. Wijeyekoon (1966) 69 NLR 97.
16. Ranaweera v. Wickramasinghe (1961) 72 NLR 553, 558.
17. Visuvalingam v. Liyanage (1983) 1 Sri L R 203, 216, 217.
18. Shanmugam v. Commissioner of Registration of Indian and Pakistani Residents (1962) 64 NLR 29, 33.
19. Gunaseela v. Udugama (1966) 69 NLR 193.
REFERENCE to the Supreme Court under Article 125 of the Constitution by the Court of Appeal.
Sanath Jayatilleke for the petitioner in No. 1/91.
Kithsiri Gunaratne with Miss S. M. Senaratne and Saliya Mathew for the petitioners in Nos. 2/91 and 3/91.
J. C. Boange for the petitioner in Nos, 5/91 to 15/91 and 17/91.
Rohan Sahabandu for the petitioner in No. 16/91.
Development in Nos. 1/91 to 17/91.
Bimal Rajapakse for the Respondent Societies in Nos. 1/91, 8/91, 14/91 and 15/91.
H. D. Gomes for the Respondent Societies in Nos. 2/91 and 3/91.
M. D. H. FERNANDO, J.
such disputes shall be referred to the Registrar for decision.
(b) refer it for disposal to an arbitrator or arbitrators.
(3)Any party aggrieved by the award of the arbitrator or arbitrators may appeal therefrom to the Registrar ..."
Rule 49(v) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1974, requires an arbitrator to be appointed by the Registrar.
Acting under section 58(2), the Registrar of Co-operative Societies referred certain disputes fordisposaltoarbitrators.
the provisions of Article 114(1) of the Constitution ?
contrary in Chapter IX) of scheduled public officers, is vested in the (Judicial Service) Commission.
Section 58 corresponds to section 53 of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance (Cap. 124) which wasconsideredbyH.N.G.
matters just mentioned does not involve the exercise of the judicial power of the State.
that the law does not conflict with the Constitution or that it must be regarded as valid despite such conflict.
with overriding provisions of the Constitution."
involving ordinary contractual rights and obligations.
2. Article 4(c) precluded the conferment of judicial power on the Registrar and on arbitrators, who werenot"institutions"
that Commission under and in terms of Article 114.
years that the Registrar and arbitrators could exercise judicial power when acting under section58(oritspredecessor).
institutions established by laws enacted prior to the Constitution.
interpreted in a series of decisions.
the executive or the legislature." (Bribery Commissioner v. Ranasinghe.(3) R. v. Liyanage,(4): Liyanage v. The Queen (5)).
judicial power, such as the power to nominate a Bench to hear a case (Liyanage,(4)).
held in Jailabdeen v. Danina Umma (9).
the powers conferred by the Act"
the Tribunal by the Governor-General, and not by the Judicial Service Commission."
the Bribery Tribunal which tried him were not lawfully appointed to the Tribunal".
virtue of Articles 105(2) and 168(1), "recognised" by the Constitution.
they are transferred to other bodies, the officers or members thereof must be appointed in terms ofArticles114and170.
jurisdiction vested in the civil courts, and that the transfer of that jurisdiction to persons not appointedbytheJ.S.C.
vested in the civil courts.
The question of mixed functions was considered in several decisions. In WalkerSons&Co.Ltdv.Fry,(12)H.N.G.
administrative only in name, then the principle that you cannot do indirectly that which you cannot do directlywillapply.
That principle will also apply if there is frequent entrustment of judicial power to unpaid functionaries".
inconsistencies. Finally, it is necessary to consider whether it has been "otherwise expressly provided in theConstitution"
directly covered by the language used: Shanmugam v. Commissioner for RegistrationofIndian&PakistaniResidents(18).
appointed by the Registrar is a part of such institution.
AMERASINGHE, J. - I agree.

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