IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition under Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

CA-WRT -196-2020 N. M. M. Brothers (Pvt) Ltd., Hapugahayayatenna, Handessa, Kandy.

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 : D.N. Samarakoon, J.

B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

Counsel : Romesh de Silva P.C. with Harith de Mel for the Petitioner Milinda Gunathilaka ASG, PC with Navodi de Soyza SC, for the Respondents.

Written 11.11.2022 (by the Petitioner)

Submissions : 18.01.2022 (by the Respondents)

On Argued on : 26.01.2023 Decided on : 03.05.2024 The delivering of the judgment was deferred since connected matters Writ 197 2020, Writ 199 2020 and Writ 200

2020 were being argued.

JUDGEMENT

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 N.M.M. Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Handessa, Kandy 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 and if this is prevented, the manufacturers would engage in malpractices putting the entire brand name of “Ceylon Tea” into jeopardy.

Neither the Petitioner nor this Court attempt to dissuade Sri Lanka Tea Board from exercising one of its functions. The question is the exercise of discretionary power and whether rules of natural justice should be followed.

The position of the Petitioner is that on 30.06.2020 the Petitioner was made aware by the broker that the 4th Respondent, that is the Tea Commissioner had notified the broker that the registration of the factory of the Petitioner had been suspended with effect from that date. Then on 01.07.2020 which is the following day the Tea Inspector of Gampola visited the Petitioner’s factory and wrote on the Tea Book P.4. Then on 07.07.2020 after some days of the suspension P.6 was received which was dated 02.07.2020. That letter requests the Petitioner to attend to an inquiry on 09.07.2020.

The argument of the Petitioner is that it was not given any prior notice of suspension, and not afforded an inquiry as provided for in section 8(2) the Tea Control Act. Respondents accept the above position especially that prior notice was not given by the following position they take at paragraph 97 of the written submissions.

“97. As stated above, the rules of natural justice do not demand that hearing should be granted prior to suspension. The requirement of audi alteram partem can be satisfied when the Petitioner is called for an inquiry to state his version, after the suspension had taken place, to finally decide as to what further steps should be taken in respect of the Petitioner factory. The judicial decisions recognize that hearing granted ex-post facto compensates for absence of prior-hearing.”

They cite the cases of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India 1978 AIR 597 and Literature Borad of Review vs. H.M.H. Publishing Company Inc. (1964) Qd. R.

261 and also Twist vs. Randwick Municipal Council (1976) 136 CLR 106.

The Respondents have also said that material facts are in di