IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for mandates in the nature of Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Case No: CA/WRIT/198/2020 1. G. Savarimuthu Retty and Sons (Pvt) Ltd, Uplands Tea Factory, Uplands Estate, Peradeniya.

PETITIONER Vs.

1. Sri Lanka Tea Board No. 574, Galle Road, Colombo 03.

2. Jayampathy Molligoda Chairman, Sri Lanka Tea Board, No. 574, Galle Road, Colombo 03.

3. Anura Siriwardena Director General, Sri Lanka Tea Board, No. 574, Galle Road, Colombo 03.

4. E.A.J.K. Edirisinghe Tea Commissioner, Sri Lanka Tea Board, No.574, Galle Road, Colombo 03.

RESPONDENTS Before: Hon. D.N. Samarakoon, J.

Counsel: Dr. Romesh de Silva P. C., with Lakshman Perera P.C., Thishya Weragoda and Niran Anketell instructed by Chandrakumar de Silva for the Petitioner.

Milinda Gunathilleke, A. S. G., P. C., for the Respondents.

Argued on: 27.02.20241 Written Submissions: 11.11.2022 by the Petitioner.

17.01.2023 by the Respondents.

Decided on: 10th May 2024

1 The connected Writ 195 2020 and Writ 196 2020 were argued before me and Justice Mahendran. The former was decided in 26.09.2022 and the latter on 03.05.2024. On 29.01.2024 it was agreed by junior counsel to fix this case (Writ 198 2020) and the other two cases Writ 199 2020 and Writ 200 2020 before me as Single Judge on material available in record. But later on the same day the respondents resiled, with the permission of the Court and agreed to argue before me as Single Judge. Hence argued on the above date from 1.35 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.

D. N. Samarakoon J., This matter was heard at first together with three other WRIT applications including WRIT 195/2020, This court decided that matter by judgment dated

26.09.2022 The learned Additional Solicitor General, President’s Counsel took up the position that the facts in each case are different. However, in as much as the suspension by the Tea Board in Writ 195 2020 was in respect of Kurugama Tea Factory Pvt. Ltd. in Muruthalawa, Kandy in this case the relevant Tea Factory is G. Savarimuthu Retty and Sons (Pvt) Ltd., Uplands Tea Factory, Uplands Estate, Peradeniya and this also relates to a suspension of the Tea Factory and the position of the Petitioner is that the rule audi alteram partem was violated.

At the commencement of the written submission the Respondent has submitted that it is the standard practice to carry out random inspections of catalogued tea for sale from time to time to ensure that the quality of made tea is maintained in terms of circulars and regulations, that withdrawing lines of catalogued tea is a routine part of the process of maintaining the quality of Ceylon Tea. Submissions have been made, that, large numbers of lines of tea are withdrawn and retained at broker’s warehouses pending investigation of quality and the documents marked P8(a), P8(b) and P.8(d) very clearly demonstrate that the retention of Tea lines pending investigation is a standard practice that applies to all Tea Manufacturers in the industry. It is not an isolated or a targeted practice carried out against the petitioner only. (paragraph 11).

The respondents further state, that, the petitioner’s tea was collected from the broker’s warehouse on 20.08.2020 and they were detected of having 21 mg/g of glucose.

The respondents argue, that, the petitioner is not entitled to relief mainly on four reasons. They are, (i) The petitioner’s unmeritorious conduct (ii) The decision to suspend was not arbitrary (iii) The respondents at all times followed due process (iv) The material facts are in dispute and hence no writ Interestingly under (ii) above, at paragraph 25 of the written submissions, the respondents submit that the petitioner has no right to manufacture tea and it is a privilege to the petitioner granted by issuing a license and cites Nakkuda Ali vs. Jayaratne, the Privy Council case.

In NAKKUDA ALI