ORDER

REGARDING AMENDMENT TO THE PETITION

This application was filed on 07.08.2023 challenging the validity of the F.L.04 liquor license (for the sale of liquor not to be consumed in the premises) issued to the 6th Respondent-Cargills Food Company Pvt Ltd in Weligama by the 1st Respondent-the Commissioner General of Excise.

The main basis for challenge is that the issue of the liquor license is in violation of rule 20(c) of the Excise Notification 902 marked as P3 viz., that the operative sales outlet at No. 454, Matara Road, Weligama is within 100 meters to a place of public religious place of worship in violation of the rule 20(c).

The Petitioner has filed a motion dated 05.02.2025 moving to amend the Petition by adding a prayer and interim relief that, “to issue by way of an interim relief, an Order suspending the validity/the operation of the liquor license issued to the 6th respondent by the 1st to 3rd respondents under the Excise Ordinance and the Regulations promulgated under the same to the Liquor Sale Outlet at the premises No. 454, Matara Road, Weligama of the 6th Respondent until the final determination of this Application”

On behalf of the 6th Respondent, preliminary objections to the maintainability of the application to amend pleadings were raised:

1. Application to amend the petition only contained in motion dated 05.02.2025 but no amended petition presented to Court.

2. No affidavit accompanying the application and that no material deposed to the satisfaction of Court.

3. The petitioner is guilty of grave laches.

4. Application to amend pleadings is mala fide and dishonest.

BACKGROUND

The Petitioner has made an application to intervene in CA Writ 152/2020 which was rejected. Then he has filed this application on the premise that 6th Respondent’s liquor outlet was less than 100 meters from a place of religious worship. At such time, the Petitioner was in possession of a Survey Plan No. 1144 dated 24th September 2022, which (the Petitioner contends) establishes the ‘distance rule’ violation.

In this application, no interim relief was sought to cancel or suspend the liquor license. The matter was then fixed for argument on 22nd February 2024 at the behest of the Petitioner. The 6th Respondent in the meantime was directed to file its objections on 24th October 2023.

The Petitioner thereafter by motion dated 23rd August 2023, sought to support the interim relief which it had sought in its Petition.

The 6th Respondent thereafter filed its Statement of Objections on 22.01.2024 and raised multiple preliminary objections in respect of the maintainability of the application.

Pursuant to the motion filed by the Petitioner, case was mentioned on 13th March 2024 on which date, the 4th Respondent informed that it would, on its own motion conduct a survey to ascertain the distance between the relevant outlet and the place of public religious place. This request was allowed on the basis that the same would be conducted by the 4th Respondent on its own volition and not pursuant to an order of Court, and the condition that such survey would be conducted without prejudice to the legal positions of the parties.

After conducting the said survey, the report was submitted to the Court by the 4th Respondent on 8th January 2025.

The Petitioner, by motion dated 05th February 2025, sought to introduce new reliefs by amending the Petition contending that the amendment was required by reason of the findings of the survey. The 6th Respondent filed objections on 20th August 2025, and oral submissions were made on 26th September 2025.

IS THE PETITIONER GUILTY OF LACHES?

It was the Petitioner’s position from the beginning that the liquor outlet was situated less than 100 meters from the place of religious worship. By paragraphs 5 and 6 of the original Petition dated 7th August 2023, it was specifically pleaded that he caused Survey Plan No. 1144 dated 24.09.2022 (P2) to be drawn by which the Petitioner claims he was able to determine that the liquor license had