IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA.

Dinamithra Gedara Upali Jayakoddy, No. 2/12, Liyangawathura, Paniwila.

Case No. CA (PHC) 150/15.

H.C Kandy Case No. 25/2013 (Writ) PETITIONER.

V.

01. W.M.P.K. Weerasekara, Commissioner of Cooperative Development and Registrar (Central Province), Department Cooperative Development of Central Province, Ehelepola Kumarihamy Mawatha, Bogambara, Kandy.

02. Kundasale Multi-Purpose Cooperative Society Limited, Menikhinne.

03. R.K. Chandrakanthi, Arbitrator, 28, Dambawela Road, Ampitiya.

RESPONDENTS -NOW AND BETWEEN.-

Dinamithra Gedara Upali Jayakoddy, No. 2/12, Liyangawathura, Paniwila.

PETITIONER- APPELLANT.

V.

01. W.M.P.K. Weerasekara, Commissioner of Cooperative Development and Registrar (Central Province), Department Cooperative Development of Central Province, Ehelepola Kumarihamy Mawatha, Bogambara, Kandy.

A.M.K.C.K. Atapattu, Commissioner of Cooperative Development and Registrar (Central Province), Department Cooperative Development of Central Province, Ehelepola Kumarihamy Mawatha, Bogambara, Kandy.

1A SUBSTITUTED-RESPONDENT.

02. Kundasale Multi-Purpose Cooperative Society Limited, Menikhinne.

03. R.K. Chandrakanthi, Arbitrator, 28, Dambawela Road, Ampitiya.

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS Before: Prasantha De Silva J.

&

S.U.B Karaliyadde J.

Counsel: Mr. I. M Bandara A.A.L for the Petitioner-Appellant Mr. Sri Metta S.C for the 1st Respondent-Respondent Mr. H Amarasinghe A.A.L for the 2nd Respondent-Respondent Written Submissions tendered on: By the Petitioner-Appellant – 09.01.2019.

1st Respondent – Respondent – 23.10.2018. 2nd Respondent – Respondent – 10.09.2019.

Argued: 18.01.2021. Judgment delivered on: 25.02.2021.

Prasantha De Silva J.

JUDGMENT

The Petitioner- Appellant was employed as a store manager at the 2^nd Respondent-

Respondent, Kundasale Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Limited. Apparently, there was a dispute between the Petitioner-Appellant and the 2^nd Respondent-Respondent Society over an alleged shortage of goods worth of Rs. 973,762.45 during the period of 1.03.1984 - 21.12.2010.

The said dispute was referred to the 1^st Respondent-Respondent Commissioner by the 2^nd Respondent society to recover sum of Rs. 973,762.45 from the Petitioner-Appellant.

The 1^st Respondent-Respondent Commissioner has referred the said dispute to an arbitration before the 3^rd Respondent-Respondent Arbitrator in terms of Section 58 (2) (b) of the Co-operative Societies Law No. 05 of 1972.

Thereafter, the 3^rd Respondent-Arbitrator had inquired into the matter and held that the Petitioner-Appellant should pay a sum of Rs. 765,512.42 to the 2^nd Respondent Society.

Being aggrieved by the said award of the Arbitrator, the Petitioner-Appellant has preferred an Appeal to the 1^st Respondent-Commissioner in terms of Section 58 (2) of the Co-

operative Convention of No. 04 of 1993 of the Central Province.

It appears that the 1^st Respondent-Respondent Commissioner had rejected the said Appeal in terms of Rule 49 (xii) (b) of the Co-operative Rules 1973, published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette No 93/5 dated 10.01.1974 made under Section 61 of the Co-operative Societies Law No. 05 of 1972, for failing to submit the Appeal deposit as prescribed by Rule 49 (xii) (a) of the Co-operative Rules 1973.

Subsequently, the Petitioner-Appellant has invoked the Jurisdiction of the High Court of the Central Province holden in Kandy seeking to quash the 1^st Respondent Commissioner’s said decision – by way of a Writ Application bearing No 25/2013 seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the decision of the 1^st Respondent Commissioner and also a Writ of Mandamus to compel the 1^st Respondent Commissioner to consider the Appeal.

However, on the basis for failing to submit the Appeal deposit as prescribed by Rule 49 (xii) (a) of the Co-operative society rules of 1993. The Provincial High Court of the Central Province dismissed the Petitioner’s said application.

It was the position taken up by the Petitioner-Appellant before us that the on