Mayadunne Corea J

The Petitioner in this Application, inter alia, sought the following reliefs:

“(b) Grant and issue a mandate in the nature of a writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st Respondent and/or his servants or their successors in office thereof, to forthwith register the Special Purpose vehicle bearing chassis numbers KDH201-0130862 & VW2E26-016295 as “DUAL PURPOSE VEHICLES subject to the only condition that MOBILE WORKSHOP FITTED which is the applicable registration procedure available at the time of importation of above vehicles to the country.

(c) Grant and issue a mandate in a writ of Mandamus compelling the 1^st Respondent to reply to the letter marked as P16(a) stating their position to refuse the registration of these vehicles as “DUAL PURPOSE VEHICLES” subject to the only condition that MOBILE WORKSHOP FITTED which was the applicable registration procedure available at the time of importation of above vehicles to the country.

(d) Grant and issue a mandate in a writ of Prohibition preventing the 1^st Respondent from registering the vehicles in question under the Department of Motor Traffic Number Series of “PZA” in terms of Gazette Notification No. 2224/24 dated 22^nd April 2021.”

The facts of the case briefly are as follows. The Petitioner imported two special purpose vehicles to Sri Lanka on or around 21.05.2019. Following the payment of customs duties, the vehicles were delivered for customs inspection purposes. The vehicles were thereafter detained by the Sri Lanka Customs Preventive – Admin branch for an investigation relating to the importation of the said vehicles, and the 2^nd Respondent failed to release the vehicles for a period of four years. The vehicles were released to the Petitioner on or around 21.06.2023. The Preventive Administrative Branch of the Sri Lanka Customs were unable to establish any violation committed by the Petitioner under the Customs Ordinance or any other law. Despite this, it is alleged that the Petitioner had to pay Rs. 2 million as a demurrage to have the consignment released. The Petitioner had to incur further expenses to have the vehicles restored to roadworthy condition.

The Petitioner further alleges that on 20.11.2023 the Petitioner submitted the vehicles for registration with the 1^st Respondent. The officers of the 1^st Respondent had informed the Petitioner that the vehicles should be registered under the “PZA” category according to the special Extraordinary Gazette Notification No. 2224/24 dated 22.04.2021. The Petitioner wrote to the 1^st Respondent and requested to register the vehicles in terms of the Gazette Notification No. 2113/09 dated 05.03.2019, which was the registration procedure available and applicable at the time of importation of the above vehicles as “dual purpose vehicles” subject only to the condition “mobile workshop fitted”. The 1^st Respondent, however, had failed to reply to the Petitioner’s letters.

The Petitioner’s contention

The Petitioner challenged the acts of the Respondents on the following grounds:

• The Petitioner was unable to complete the registration process until the new Gazette Notification No. 2224/24 came into effect as the vehicles were unlawfully detained by the Customs.

• The Petitioner has a legitimate expectation to register the vehicles as per the law/procedure available at the time of importation of the vehicles.

• Gazette No. 2224/24 was issued under the Excise (Special Provisions) Act, No. 13 of 1989 and is not relevant to the vehicles in question since the Petitioner imported the vehicles on 21.05.2019 and submitted the customs declaration on 22.05.2019 in terms of Gazette No. 2113/09.

• The Respondents cannot use conditions laid down in Gazette No. 2224/24 to register a motor vehicle imported and cleared from Customs in terms of Gazette No. 2113/09.

The Respondents’ contention

The Respondents raised the following objections:

• The vehicles were detained by the Customs for the purposes of investigation. On 18.06.2019, the 2^nd Respondent approve