JUDGEMENT

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

1. The petitioner has made an application under the provisions of the Excise Ordinance in accordance with the form prescribed by the Second Schedule to the Gazette Notification published in the Extraordinary Gazette bearing No. 1544/17 dated 10.04.2008. A copy of the said application is marked and produced as P-6. The same had been submitted on or about 19.09.2023, according to the Third Part of which the relevant recommendation for the issue of the F.L.4 licence had been granted on 17.10.2023. Thereafter, as there was no progress. The petitioner, having made several inquiries, had not received any positive information has, by P-11, written to the Commissioner General of Excise demanding the issue of the licence as applied. As the licence was not issued, this application was preferred by the petitioner.

2. This application was filed on 23.01.2024 and was supported on 06.02.2024, on which date notices had been issued on the respondents. On 28.03.2024, State Counsel had appeared for of all the respondents, and time had been granted to file objections. Subsequently this has been mentioned again on 10.06.2024, on which day further time has been granted for objections, and when mentioned on 27.06.2024, further time has once again been granted for objections. The matter was then scheduled for argument on 30.09.2024, on which day too the objections had not been filed and the argument was refixed, granting further time to file the objections, and the matter was refixed for argument on 16.01.2025. Up until such date, no objections have been filed, and the matter was to be mentioned again on 26.03.2025 purportedly for settlement, on which day, further time was sought to settle the matter, and when mentioned on 07.05.2025, similarly, time was granted until 23.06.2025. On 23.06.2025, the Senior State Counsel had informed that no settlement is possible, and as such, the matter was fixed for argument on 25.09.2025, and time was granted once again for the respondents to file their objections in the interim. However, when this matter was taken up for argument on 25.09.2025, the respondents had not filed any objections up until then. The matter was taken up on that day, and the arguments were concluded. The parties were permitted to file their post-argument written submissions on or before 14.10.2025 in the Registry, and the judgement was reserved for 22.10.2025.

3. Senior State Counsel Ms. Mihiri de Alwis, appearing for all the respondents, submitted to Court that the only issue that prevents the grant of the licence is the directive made by document R-1, which had been tendered to Court with a motion dated 08.09.2025. Said R-1 was so tendered along with an affidavit of the incumbent Commissioner General of Excise. According to the said affidavit, the Commissioner General of Excise concedes that the petitioner has applied for a new F.L.4 licence and the same is pending before the Ministry of Finance pending approval under Section 28(a)(1) of the Excise Ordinance. It is also averred that the process of issuance of liquor licences had been suspended from 21.10.2024 in view of R-1, a directive by the Presidential Secretariat imposing a total suspension on the issuance of all new licences of all categories. It is also averred that subsequent thereto, by letter dated 12.12.2024, a variation was effected to the earlier directive, and the suspension now operates only in respect of new F.L.4 category licenses, and that the application of the petitioner falls within this category. The said two letters are tendered as R-1 and R-2, respectively.

4. That being so, the learned Senior State Counsel, Ms. Mihiri de Alwis, stated that the said directives had been conveyed to the Ministry of Finance, Economic Stabilisation and National Policies, in view of which the respondents are unable to issue the licence. The learned Senior State Counsel also concedes that all other requirements have been satisfied for the issue of the said