JUDGEMENT

K. M. G. H. KULATUNGA, J.

1. The petitioner has been engaging in business under the business name and style of “Amaratunga Enterprises” with the 1st respondent Water Board. The said business involved the engaging of gully bowsers in transporting and discharging sewage and wastewater at a pumping station of the 1st respondent. The petitioner had been informed by letter P-11 that 10 gully bowsers so engaged will be suspended pending an inquiry. The petitioner, by this application, is challenging the said decision and seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the said suspension.

2. The petitioner is the owner of the business name registered under the style of “Amaratunga Enterprises” (vide P-2). The petitioner admits that K. K. Shantha, her husband, is employed by the 1st respondent Board in the capacity of a driver, and the said Shantha has been in the employment of the 1st respondent before the petitioner entered into the business relationship with the 1st respondent Board. The petitioner, at paragraph 12 of the petition, admits that the said Shantha is her husband, so employed by the 1st respondent, and that an intimation to her husband that his employment with the 1st respondent may disqualify his wife from engaging in business with the 1st respondent. In view of this, the petitioner admits that her husband has tendered his resignation with effect from 21.02.2024. However, in view of a pending audit, his resignation has not been accepted [vide P-9(b)]. The petitioner at paragraph 13 admits that her husband did inform her on 17.05.2024 that he received a letter intimating of an investigation being conducted by the Human Resources Department of the 1st respondent with regard to the disposal of sewage by gully bowsers owned by Amaratunga Enterprises to the Jayawadanagama pumping station.

3. Further, in view of the said inquiry her husband has been transferred to the Dehiwala - Mount Lavinia office of the 1st respondent. Thereafter, her husband has received letter P-11 dated 21.05.2024 informing him of the temporary suspension of the services of 10 gully bowsers referred to in the said letter until the conclusion of the said inquiry/investigation. The said letter also informed that the said temporary suspension was operative from 27.05.2024. The petitioner submits that her husband has, by letter dated 25.05.2024, informed the 1st respondent that he has no connection to the business activities of Amaratunga Enterprises.

4. The petitioner’s primary argument is that the suspension of the engagement of the gully bowsers referred to in P-11 has been made without any prior intimation or affording a fair hearing to Amaratunga Enterprises and that the said decision to so suspend is in violation of rules of natural justice, unreasonable and in breach of the legitimate expectation of the petitioner and is illegal and ultra vires.

5. The substantial issue for determination is the legality and propriety of the decision to suspend the engagement of the 10 gully bowsers as made by P-11. The petitioner claims that these 10 gully bowsers were engaged by Amaratunga Enterprises to the 1st respondent. As such, any suspension without due intimation to the said Amaratunga Enterprises is illegal and unlawful. P-11 is a temporary suspension pending an inquiry or an investigation. It is alleged that K. Shantha is engaged in business with the 1st respondent through Amaratunga Enterprises, which is owned by him or his family. The petitioner admits that her husband informed her of P-11. This letter had also been copied to Amaratunga Enterprises.

6. The petitioner’s main position is that the suspension of the services of the gully bowsers without prior intimation to Amaratunga Enterprises and the petitioner is a clear violation of the right to be heard, and to that extent, the said decision is arbitrary and illegal. On a close perusal of P-11, it is apparent that the suspension was the engagement of the 10 gully bowsers referred to in P-11. This is addresse