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.

Samrin Holdings (Pvt) Ltd, Samrin tea Factory, Akulahena, Nankiyandeniya, Galle.

C.A.(Writ) WRT - 0364/20 PETITIONER Vs.

1. Sri Lanka Tea Board.

No. 574, Galle Road, Colombo 3.

2. Jayampathy Molligoda.

Chairman, Sri Lanka Tea Board, No.574, Galle Road, Colombo 3.

3. Anura Siriwardena.

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

4. E.A.J.K Edirisinghe.

Tea Commissioner, Sri Lanka Tea Board, No 574, Galle Road, Colombo 3.

RESPONDENTS BEFORE : M. SAMPATH K. B. WIJERATNE, J WICKUM A. KALUARACHCHI, J COUNSEL : Lakshman Perera PC with Thishya Weragoda and Lakmali Fernando for the Petitioner.

Milinda Gunathilake ASG with Navodi De Soyza SC for the Respondents.

ARGUED ON : 10.03.2023 DECIDED ON : 10.05.2023 WICKUM A. KALUARACHCHI, J.

The petitioner has instituted these proceedings seeking, • a mandate in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the decision of the 1st to 4th respondents to suspend the registration of Samrin Tea factory as reflected in documents P-7 and P-8, • a mandate in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing document marked P-7, • a mandate in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing document marked P-8, • a mandate in the nature of a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents, their servants, agents, officers, and those holding through or under them from placing any restrictions on licensed tea brokers pertaining to the purchase and/or sale and/or auction of made tea from the petitioner’s Samrin tea factory.

At the hearing, the learned President’s Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents made oral submissions.

Facts relating to the application The petitioner is a limited liability company that manufactures tea. The 1st respondent Tea Board carries out random inspections of cataloged tea for sale to ensure the quality of made tea. On 1st of July 2020, the respondents obtained a tea sample (in triplicate) from the dryer mouth teas at the petitioner’s factory in the presence of the factory manager. One sample from each triplicate was given to the factory manager and the remaining samples were taken into the Sri Lanka Tea Board custody and were sent to the Sri Lanka Tea Board laboratory to test for sugar content. Upon examination, one sample was found to be contaminated with 35 mg/g of glucose. According to the circular marked R2(a) dated 11th March 2019 which was issued further to the circular RTM/01/2005/11/01, the maximum permissible level of glucose in black tea in the low country should be 20 mg/g. The 4^th respondent communicated the results of the laboratory test to the petitioner company by the letter dated 12^th August 2020 and informed that the petitioner company has violated the circular RTM/01/2005/11/01 and Section 8(2) of the Tea Control Act (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Act”). In the same letter, the petitioner was requested to be present for an inquiry on 18^th August 2020. As there was no representative from the petitioner company for the inquiry on the said date (the learned counsel said that the petitioner received the letter late), the 4^th respondent rescheduled the inquiry to be held on 25^th August 2020 and communicated the same to the petitioner by another letter. One of its directors and the factory manager of the petitioner participated in the inquiry held before the Assistant Tea Commissioner on 25th August 2020. Following that, letters were exchanged between the petitioner and the Tea Board, and by the letter dated 9^th September 2020 marked P-7, the 4th respondent suspended the petitioner company from manufacturing and/or selling tea for a period of four months based on the laboratory test report. In addition, by the letter dated 9^th September 2020 marked P-8, the 4^th responden