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, Prohibition, and Mandamus, under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution.

C.A. Case No. WRT - 0250/22

1. Palitha Hemaratne Kankanamge, Carrying on business at No.270/3, Main Street, Ground Floor, ‘Ratna Building’, Colombo 11.

2. Lane Anton Rosario Johnson, Carrying on business at No.270/4, Main Street, Ground Floor, ‘Ratna Building’, Colombo 11.

The 2nd Petitioner appearing by his lawful Power of Attorney holder, Thomas Joseph Anthony Venister Fernando of No. 51/6, Galpoththa Street, Colombo 13.

3.Suppiah Sivasubramaniyam, Carrying on business at No 270/5, Main Street, Ground Floor, ‘Ratna Building’, Colombo 11.

4.Sivam Raman, Carrying on business at No.270, Main Street, Ground Floor, ‘Ratna Building’, Colombo 11.

PETITIONERS Vs.

1.Urban Development Authority, 6th and 7th floors, ‘Sethsiripaya’, Battaramulla.

2.Major-General (Retd) Udaya Nanayakkara, Chairman, Urban Development Authority, 6th and 7th floors, ‘Sethsiripaya’, Battaramulla.

3.N. P. K. Ranaweera, Director-General, Urban Development Authority, 6th and 7th floors, ‘Sethsiripaya’, Battaramulla.

4.Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, 17th and 18th floors, ‘Suhurupaya’, Battaramulla.

5.Prasanna Ranatunga.

Minister of Urban Development, Ministry of Urban Development, 17th and 18th floors, ‘Suhurupaya’, Battaramulla.

6.Rathna Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited, No B4/1, Sucharitha Mawatha, Colombo 12.

7.Ranhotigedara Wilson, 8.Jayasuriya Mudiyanselage Shirani Jayasuriya.

The 7th and 8th Respondents Above- named carry on business under the name and style of “Wilson Stores”, at No. 20, 1.X. Pereira Mawatha, Colombo 11.

RESPONDENTS BEFORE : M. T. MOHAMMED LAFFAR, J WICKUM A. KALUARACHCHI, J COUNSEL : Nilshantha Sirimanne with Deshara Goonetilleke for the Petitioners.

Suranga Wimalasena, DSG with R. Aluwihare, SC, for the 1^st to 5^th Respondents.

Gamini Perera with Wijitha Salpitikorala for the 6th Respondent.

Niranjan De Silva with Shane Foster for the 7th and

8^th Respondents.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TENDERED ON : 20.10.2023 (On behalf of the Petitioners)

24.10.2023 (On behalf of the 7th and 8th Respondents)

DECIDED ON : 20.11.2023

ORDER

WICKUM A. KALUARACHCHI, J.

The four petitioners filed this application seeking writs of Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition. Twenty-six reliefs have been prayed for in the petition, including interim reliefs. Quit notices marked as P-16(a) to P-16(d) have been issued to the petitioners by the 1st respondent Urban Development Authority on the ground that the petitioners unlawfully occupy several shops situated at a state land. The petitioners’ challenge the said quit notices by this application.

The learned counsel for the petitioner made oral submissions in supporting the application. The learned Deputy Solicitor General for the 1st to 5th respondents, the learned counsel for the 6th respondent and the learned counsel for the 7^th and 8^th respondents agreed to file written submissions without making oral submissions. However, only the written submission on behalf of the petitioners was filed by the given date, which is the 20^th October 2023. On 25^th October 2023, written submissions were filed on behalf of the 7th and 8th respondents, apologizing for the delay and the learned Counsel for the 7th and 8th respondents urged to consider the written submissions filed by him. This order has to be made to determine whether the notices should be issued to the respondents and whether the interim reliefs prayed for by the petitioners should be granted.

Briefly, the facts relating to this case are as follows:

There was a lease agreement between the Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “UDA”) and the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent had constructed a seven-story commercial building on the land, which was leased out to the 6^th respondent. However, due to the reasons explained in the petition, the said lea