SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 422

COURT OF APPEAL
Hon.MSampathK.B.WijeratneJ.(CA)
Sehu Ismail Akbar Hassan and 2 others – Appellant
Versus
A. Bodaragama The Commissioner General of Exciseand 8 others – Respondent
CA/Writ/0346/2020



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 in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

1. Sehu Ismail Akbar Hassan, No. 337, Media Road, Pasarichenai, Pottuvil - 19.

2. Mohideen Pichchai Harron, Main Road, Pasarichenai, Pottuvil – 19.

3. Pakkeer Mohaideen Yaseen Kiyath, No.227, Kudakkalli Road, Pasarichenai, Pottuvil – 19.

PETITIONER CA No. CA/Writ/0346/2020 v.

1. A. Bodaragama, The Commissioner General of Excise, Excise Department of Sri Lanka, No. 353, Kotte Road, Rajagiriya.

2. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise (Revenue), Excise Commissioner’s Department, Excise Department of Sri Lanka, No. 353, Kotte Road, Rajagiriya.

3. L. J. Ranaweera, Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Easten Province, Trincomalee.

4. N. Susathran Superintendent of Excise, Ampara Division, Ampara.

5. N. Srikanth Officer in Charge of Excise, Ampara.

6. Dr. M. K. C. Senanayake, Director of General, Department of Fiscal Policy, 3rd Floor (New Building), The Secretariat, Colombo 01.

7. R. Thhiraviyaraj, Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretary’s Division of Pottuvil, Divisional Secretariat, Pottuvil.

7A. Sandaruwan Anuruddha Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretary Division of Pottuvil, Divisional Secretariat, Pottuvil.

8. Arugambay Surfers Villa (Private) Limited, Arugambay Surfers Villa Hotel, Main Street, Arugambay South, Pottuvil - 05.

RESPONDENTS BEFORE : M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J. &

M. Ahsan R. Marikar J.

COUNSEL : Rushdie Habeeb with J. Fored for the Petitioners.

A. Jayakody, S.C. for the 1st to 7th Respondents.

Sandamal Rajapaksha with Tharushi Ishanka for the 8th Respondent.

ARGUED ON : 17.11.2023 DECIDED ON : 04.10.2024 M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J.

Introduction The 1st Petitioner is the Principal of Noorul Hudha Preliminary Arabic School, while the 2nd Petitioner serves as the President and the 3rd Petitioner is the Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the Jummah Grand Mosque, Pasarichenai (Arugambay South), Pottuvil-19.

The 1st Respondent is the Commissioner General of Excise, and the 2nd to 5th Respondents are his subordinate officers. The 6th Respondent is the Director General of the Fiscal Policy Department of the Treasury, and the 7th Respondent is the Divisional Secretary of Pottuvil. The 8th Respondent is Arugambay Surfers Villa (Private) Limited.

The 1st to 3rd Petitioners, in their respective capacities, challenge the legality of the liquor license issued to the 8th Respondent. The Petitioners allege that the liquor license originally issued to Dr. Somasundaram Kethiswaran Pillai for operating the New Kethees Beach Hotel was irregularly renewed under the name of Arugambay Surfers Villa (Private) Limited, in violation of the distance restrictions.

In their amended Petition dated 9th February 2021, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Petitioners, inter alia, sought writs of certiorari to quash letter No. 16/308/42/03993 dated 18th June 2020 (‘P17’, [Prayer (c) of the Petition.]) and letter No. 16/308/42/03993 – 1 dated 18th June 2020 (‘P18’, [Prayer (e) of the Petition]). Additionally, the Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to nullify any licenses issued in terms of ‘P17’ and ‘P18, [Prayer (d) and (f) of the Petition.],’ as well as a writ of certiorari to quash any subsequent renewals made under ‘P17’ and ‘P18’. It is important to note that the Petitioners did not seek writs of mandamus to prevent the issuance or renewal of licenses under ‘P17’ and ‘P18’.

The Respondents resisted issuance of notices in this matter and accordingly, the 1st to 7th Respondents filed their limited objections. Due to a mix-up in marking the documents within the limited objections, the issue was rectified in a copy submitted on 23rd February 2023, along with a new set of documents which will be taken into account in this judgment. After considering the limited objections filed by the Respondents and the submissions made by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top