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 Court of Appeal Case No.

CA/WRT/184/2020 Harangalla Plantation (Pvt.) Ltd.

Kataboola Nawalapitiya 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. T. MOHAMMED LAFFAR, J.

Counsel: Romesh De Silva P.C. with Laxman Perera P.C.

Hiran Anketell for the Petitioner.

Milinda Gunathilake ASG for the Respondents.

Argued on: 01-02-2022 Decided on: 01-08-2022 MOHAMMED LAFFAR, J.

The Petitioner in this application has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 140 of the Constitution seeking, inter alia, for the following reliefs:

a. Grant a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the decision and/or decisions of the 1^st to 4^th Respondents to cancel and/or suspend the registration of the Harangalla Tea Factory as reflected in inter alia documents marked P4 and P7 b. Grant a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari quashing document marked "P-4" and/or the decisions contained therein;

c. Grant a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari quashing document marked "P-6" and/or the decisions contained therein;

d. Grant a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari quashing document marked "P-7" and/or the decisions contained therein;

e. Grant 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 of made tea from the Petitioner’s Harangalla Tea Factory:

The Petitioner states that on or around 02.06.2020 a lorry hired by the Petitioner to carry finished goods (tea) from the Petitioner’s factory to Colombo for auction with Lanka Commodity Brokers Limited was taken into custody by the Officers of the Yatiyantota Police Station on the suspicion that the said consignment contained refuse tea. Subsequently, the Police informed this incident to the Tea Commissioner (4th Respondent) and summoned Mr. Ashok Lal, a Director of the Petitioner Company to the Police Station on the following day. Both the said Mr. Ashok Lal and the Officers of the 1st Respondent presented as required by the Police on 03.06.2020. After the visual examination, the Officers of the 1^st Respondent, Sri Lanka Tea Board (SLTB) determined that the teas found in the lorry was not refuse tea but made tea, and therefore on that basis they released the consignment of tea to Mr. Ashok Lal. The Officers of the 1^st Respondent, however, decided to take three samples of the tea in the presence of the Police Officers and Mr. Ashok Lal for further testing. Mr. Ashok Lal and the Officers of the Police was requested to sign on the sealed sample (vide R6(c) and R6(d)). These samples were sent to the 1st Respondent’s head office for two types of testing i.e., tasting test (to be examined and tested by the Tea Tasting Unit of the SLTB) and laboratory test (to be examined and tested by the Analytical Laboratory of the SLTB).

Both tasting (R8) and laboratory (R9) test results indicated that the samples were found to be suspected of sugar and other contaminations (the maximum possible levels of sugar in the mid elevation 25mg/g. However, according to the test results the Petitioner’s tea samples exceed the mid elevation level). In the interim, on the advice of the Petitioner, another tea sample that had been catalogued by the Petitioner’s Broker – Lanka Commodity Brokers was also tested. This result (R11(a)) too indicated that the tea was contaminated with s