SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SRI)(SC) 9999

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA Wathukarage Shantha Merril Kumara, Gonakumbura, Ratnapura.

Appellant SC/MISL/04/2014

02/08/මැ

Vs.

1. National Gem and Jewellery Authority, No. 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03.

2. Amitha K. U. Gamage, Chairman/Chief Executive Officer, No. 25, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03.

2G. Viraj De Silva, Chairman/Chief Executive Officer, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, Macksons Tower, Alfred House Gardens, Colombo 03.

3. N.K.G.K. Nemmawatta, Director General, No. 25, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03.

3E. Janaka Udaya Kumara, Director General, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, Macksons Tower, Alfred House Gardens, Colombo 03.

4. N.P. Samaratunga, Deputy Director (formerly Senior Regional Manager), National Gem and Jewellery Authority Regional Office, Ratnapura.

4C. H.P. Karunathilake, Deputy Director Enforcement and Regional Development, National Gem and Jewellery Authority Regional Office, Ratnapura.

5. B.M.U.D. Basnayake, Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Renewable Energy, ‘Sampathpaya’, No. 82, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla.

5F. J.M. Thikala Jayasundara, Secretary, Ministry of Industries, No. 73/1, Galle Road, Colombo 3.

6. L. Kiriella, Legal Officer, Ministry of Mahaweli Development and Environment, ‘Sampathpaya’

No. 82, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla.

7. D.A. Ranjith, 1/7, 1st Floor, Uktennadeniya, Veralupe, Ratnapura.

8. Ranjith Kumarasiri Ratnayake, No. 748, Vinil Menik, Kahawatta.

Respondents Before: Hon. Chief Justice Murdu N.B. Fernando, P.C.

Hon. Justice A. L. Shiran Gooneratne Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena Counsel: Anuruddha Dharmarathne with G.S. Kumudini for the Appellant.

Yuresha De Silva, D.S.G., for the 1st to 6th Respondents.

Murshid Maharoof with Ishfan Uvais for the 7th and 8th Respondents.

Argued on: 18.07.2024 Written Submissions on:

By the Appellant on 08.03.2016 By the 7th and 8th Respondents on 07.02.2017 By the 1st to 6th Respondents on 02.09.2024 Decided on: 07.02.2025 Samayawardhena, J.

Factual matrix The 7th and 8th Respondents made a joint application to the National Gem and Jewellery Authority (the 1st Respondent) seeking a gemming licence in terms of section 15(3) of the National Gem and Jewellery Authority Act No. 50 of 1993 in respect of the land known as Bogahawatta in the district of Ratnapura on the basis that they collectively hold more than two-thirds share of the land. It is common ground that in accordance with No. 8(2) of the State Gem Corporation By-Laws No. 1 of 1971 published in the Gazette Extraordinary No. 14,989/8 dated 23.12.1971 marked A23, a person applying for a gemming licence shall establish that he himself owns the land or he has obtained the consent of so many of other owners as to ensure that he and such other consenting owners together own at least two-thirds of the land in respect of which the application has been made. The Petitioner objected to the application on the ground that the 7th and 8th Respondents do not hold more than a two-

thirds share of the land, but he does.

After inquiry, the 1st Respondent Authority, having determined that neither the Petitioner nor the 7th and 8th Respondents had established entitlement to a two-thirds share of the land, dismissed both applications and communicated its decision to the Petitioner by A25 dated 03.05.2013 and to the 7th and 8th Respondents by A26 of the same date.

According to section 15(8) of the Act, when the 1st Respondent Authority refuses such an application, the dissatisfied party may appeal to the Secretary to the line Ministry within thirty days of the refusal. However, instead of following this procedure, both parties appear to have appealed against the decision of the 1st Respondent Authority to the same Authority. Subsequently, the Director General of the 1st Respondent Authority (the 3rd Respondent), sitting on appeal against the said decision, decided to issue th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top