IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for mandate in the nature of writs of Certiorari and Mandamus in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution.

Rangana Prasad Weerasooriya.

No.109/A, Old Mirigama, Mirigama.

C.A. Case No. WRT-0174/20 PETITIONER Debt Conciliation Board Case Vs.

Case No. 42123

1. Weerasooriya Arachchige Ariyawathie Mangalika.

Walbothale, Mirigama.

2. Piyaseeli Wickramasinghe Chair Person.

3. W. Irangani Perera Member.

4. Shiromi Perera Member.

5. K.S Pathirana Member.

6. Sarath Chandrasiri Vithana Member.

02^nd to 06^th Respondents above, all of;

The Debt Conciliation Board, No. 35A, Dr. N.M Perera Mawatha, Colombo 08.

RESPONDENTS BEFORE : M. SAMPATH K. B. WIJERATNE, J WICKUM A. KALUARACHCHI, J COUNSEL : Ransith Gunawardena for the Petitioner.

Sandamal Rajapakshe for the -1^st Respondent.

S. Wimalasena, DSG for the 2^nd - 6^th Respondents.

ARGUED ON : 20.02.2023 DECIDED ON : 21.03.2023 WICKUM A. KALUARACHCHI, J.

This is an application for writs of certiorari and mandamus to quash the order of the Debt Conciliation Board dated 22.01.2020 and to direct the 2nd to 6th respondents to hear and adjudicate the application of the petitioner bearing number 42123 in accordance with the provisions of the Debt Conciliation Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the “Ordinance”).

The 1^st respondent-debtor made an application to the Debt Conciliation Board, praying to declare the deed bearing number 1512, dated 19.07.2010, attested by M.L Wickremasinghe, Notary Public, a mortgage. After a preliminary inquiry, the Debt Conciliation Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) decided that the said deed is a mortgage. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner made an application to the Board in terms of Section 54 of the Debt Conciliation Ordinance to review the said decision. The application for review was rejected by the Board on the basis that the powers granted to the Board in terms of Section 54 of the Debt Conciliation Ordinance could not be exercised to review this order. Stating that the 2^nd to 6^th respondents have acted ultra vires and committed errors of law by making the said order, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this court seeking writs of certiorari and mandamus.

At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent made oral submissions. The learned Deputy Solicitor General, who appeared for the 2^nd to 6^th respondents informed the court that he would not make oral submissions.

Objections were also not filed on behalf of the 2^nd to 6^th respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that his application to review the order dated 17.07.2019 was rejected by the Board on the basis that, the Board has the power under Section 54 of the Ordinance to review an order only when an application is dismissed, settled, or concluded by any other way without an inquiry. The learned counsel contended further that the said determination is erred in law and according to Section 54 of the Ordinance, any order made by the Board could be reviewed, irrespective of the fact whether an inquiry was held or not.

In reply, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the Board can review its order in accordance with Section 54 of the Ordinance only when dismissing an application, granting a certificate, approving a settlement, or before the payment of the compounded debt has been completed, as correctly determined by the Board.

The Section 54(1) of the Debt Conciliation Ordinance reads as follows;

“The Board may, of its own motion or on application made by any person interested, within three months from the making of an order by the Board dismissing an application, or granting a certificate, or approving a settlement, or before the payment of the compounded debt has been completed, review any order passed by it and pass such other in reference thereto as it thinks fit.”

According to the proceedings of the Debt Con