IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application under Article 140 of the Constitution for a mandate in the nature of Writ of Mandamus.

Keerthirathne De Alwis New Mayflower Chinese Restaurant, CA /WRIT/242/2022 No: 15/1/1, Old Kesbewa Road, Nugegoda.

Petitioner Vs.

1. M.J. Gunasiri The Commissioner General of Excise, Department of Excise, No. 353, Kotte Road, Rajagiriya.

2. M. D. M. W. K. Dissanayake Commissioner of Excise Revenue and Licenses, Department of Excise, No. 353, Kotte Road, Rajagiriya.

2a. Kapila Kumarasinghe Commissioner of Excise Revenue And Licenses, Department of Excise, No. 353, Kotte Road, Rajagiriya.

3. B. M. S. Bandara Additional Commissioner General Department of Excise, No. 353, Kotte Road, Rajagiriya.

3a. A. M. P. Arampath Additional Commissioner General Department of Excise, No. 353, Kotte Road, Rajagiriya.

4. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents Before : Sobhitha Rajakaruna, J.

Dhammika Ganepola, J.

Counsel : Yuwin Mathugama for the Petitioner.

Pulina Jayasuriya, S.C. for the Respondents.

Supported On : 16.11.2023 Decided On : 14.12.2023 Dhammika Ganepola, J.

The Petitioner in this application seeks a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the decision reflected in the document marked A18 where the Petitioner was refused to grant FL11 liquor license on the basis that he has failed to prove the ownership of the building or submit a deed of lease under Rule 13 of the Excise Notification No.902 and Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st to 3rd Respondents to grant the FL II liquor license to the Petitioner.

We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of this application and the Learned State Counsel for the Respondents opposing the application.

The Petitioner claims that he has been in possession of premises No.15/1/1, Old Kesbewa, Nugegoda since 2013. Before 2018 one Rukshan Botheju had obtained the liquor license under his name for the same premises. In 2012 one Rukshan Botheju disputed the rights of the Petitioner and filed Case No. L/489/13 in District Court Nugegoda. The Petitioner states that he was allowed to occupy said premises in lieu of the value of the necessary improvement done to the premises by the judgement of the said case No. L/489/13 from 2013(A3).

The Petitioner states that he has made an application to obtain FL 11 liquor license for impugned premises for the year 2000 providing all the necessary requirements. However, the Petitioner was informed by the 1st,2nd, and 3rd Respondents that the relevant license cannot be granted as the Petitioner failed to provide proof of the ownership or the deed of lease of the building which applies to the premises of business as per Rule No. 13(b) of the Excise Notification No.902 published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette Notification bearing No.1544/17 dated 10.04. 2008.

The Petitioner submits that he was in possession of the impugned premises throughout. The 1^st,2^ndand 3^rd Respondents delayed and denied the right of the Petitioner to obtain said license by requesting the documentation and the other material which he had obtained already from the relevant authorities.

As per Rule No.13 (b) of Excise Notification No.902 original deeds, as proof of the ownership of the premises that proposed business or if the premises are not owned by the applicant, a document expressing the consent of the owner of the premises that the proposed business can be carried out undisturbed in the identified premises required to be submitted with the new applications for FL 11 liquor license. Said Clause No. 13(b) reads as follows.

13. The documents and reports required to be submitted with regard to new applicants:

…

(b) Poof of right to carry on business at the identified premises by submitÝng either the original deeds as proof of ownership along with a certified copy of the same which shall be retained in the file maintained for the purpose, or if the premises are