Dhammika Ganepola, J.

Factual matrixs

In the instant application, the Petitioner invokes the writ jurisdiction of this Court by challenging the purported decision and directive of the 1st and /or 5th Respondents to carry out a re-survey to ascertain the distance between places of public religious worship and schools from the Petitioner’s FL-11 licensed liquor shop. The Petitioner Company is carrying out a licensed Tourist Restaurant under the name and form of ‘Daffodil Hotels’ situated at Kovilkudyiruppu, Mullaitivu. It is stated that the Petitioner has submitted an application to obtain a liquor license with a survey plan dated 18.03,2013(P12) prepared by the Licensed Surveyor S. Lokanathan which shows all schools and religious worship places with distance from the said premises in support of the fulfilment of requirements under Rule 13(g) of the Excise Notification No.902(P11). The Petitioner states that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 7th Respondents have recommended the grant of liquor license to the Petitioner. Accordingly, the FL11 liquor license has been issued to the Petitioner upon being satisfied that the said application duly complied with the requirements stipulated in the above Exercise Notification No.902.

While the Petitioner was operating the said liquor license, the Petitioner received a letter dated 28.08.2018 (P15) by which the 5th Respondent directed the 7th Respondent to carry out a survey through a superintendent of surveys or to examine whether the required distances are maintained as per Rule 13(h)of Exercise Notification No.902, as the Department of Exercise received complaints that the said premises do not satisfy the above requirements of distance. The Petitioner states that although Rule 21 of Excise Notification 902 requires the notification of the applicant regarding any objections or protests relating to violation or non- compliance of requirements under Excise Notifications received by the Commissioner General of Exercise, it is claimed that the Petitioner has not been informed about any such complaints. Further, it is submitted that an isolated building was constructed in the proximity of the said license premises a few months back consequent to the said license being granted. The Petitioner observed that a few villagers in the area visit the said so-called church which is not a recognized place of religious worship by the Department of Christian Affairs to pray. The Petitioner states that the 7^th and 8^th Respondents intend to disqualify the Pe a liquor license for the year 2019 by wrongfully and illegally construing that the said establishment is a Christian church. The impugned liquor license has been granted to the Petitioner after evaluation of his application and respective documents submitted with the application including the survey report. Hence, Petitioner claims that if any inconsistency with Exercise Notifications, inclusive of religious place of worship was located within a 500-meter radius from the licensed premises, the Exercise Department should have refused to grant the said license. In the absence, it is presumed that the said premises is in compliance with the requirements specified in the Excise Notifications and /or if any establishment exists it would have been constructed consequent of the issuance of said license. Accordingly, the Petitioner states that the direction of the 1st Respondent and /or 5th Respondent to carry out a further survey to ascertain whether the licensed premises of the Petitioner do not comply with the provision of Rule 20(c) of the Excise Notification No.902 and is mala fide and collateral and extraneous considerations. Therefore, it is claimed that granting a license to said premises complies with the provisions under the Excise Ordinance, the regulations made thereunder and the Petitioner’s legitimate expectation to carry on its business.

Consequently, the Petitioner seeks inter alia mandate in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the decision of the