ACHALA WENGAPPULI, J.

The dispute presented before this Court for its determination in SC Appeal Nos. 85, 86 and 87 of 2021, has arisen from the consolidated judgment pronounced by the Court of Appeal on 11.09.2019 in respect of three applications (CA Writ Application Nos. 98/2012, 682/2011 and 61/2012) that were filed before that Court.

The CA Writ Application No. 98/2012 is an application by which 30 Registered Licensed Surveyors (Petitioner-Appellants), who “engage in the profession of private practice in surveying”, have sought inter alia to quash the decision of the 1st and 3rd Respondent -Respondents to issue Field Staff Circular No. 05/2011 of 25.11.2011 (“P3”), by issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, while also seeking to prohibit the said Respondent-Respondents from granting Annual Practising Licences to the officers, who are serving in the Survey Department to engage in private practice, in terms of the said Circular.

The Petitioner-Appellant in CA Writ Application No. 682/2011 is the Surveyors’ Institute of Sri Lanka, a statutory body created by the Surveyors’ Institute of Sri Lanka (Incorporation) Act No. 22 0f 1982, who also prayed for almost identical reliefs, as did by the Petitioner-Appellants in CA Writ Application No. 98/2012. The Surveyors’ Institute of Sri Lanka filed another application before the Court of Appeal (CA Writ Application No. 61/2012), by which it sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash the decision of the Land Survey Council taken to issue Annual Practising Licences to the 12th to 70th Respondent-Respondents, who are named therein (“P14”), along with a Writ of Prohibition in prohibiting the said Respondent- Respondents from issuing Annual Practising Licences to serving officers of the Survey Department to engage in private practice.

In CA Writ Application No. 98/2012, the Petitioner-Appellants have named only 10 Respondent-Respondents in the caption to their petition, including the Surveyor General, Secretary to the Ministry of Lands and Land Development, the Land Surveyor Council and all of its members. During pendency of the said application before the Court of Appeal, the Government Surveyors’ Association intervened and was added as the 11th Respondent- Respondent by the Court of Appeal on 16.10.2012. A Senior Superintendent of Surveyor, serving in the Survey Department, K.S.K. Wijayawardane, too has intervened and named as the 12th Respondent- Respondent on 16.10.2012, as he too was granted an Annual Practising Licence, after the issuance of the impugned Field Staff Circular.

The three Respondent-Respondents named in CA Writ Application No. 682/2011 are the Surveyor General, the Secretary to Ministry of Lands and Land Development and the Attorney General. The Government Surveyor’s Association and the Secretary of the Survey Department Staff Officers Union, K.S.K. Wijayawardane, too were added as the 4th and 5th Respondent-Respondents respectively on 13.03.2012, after their interventions were allowed.

It is clear from the pleadings that were tendered before the Court of Appeal by the Petitioner-Appellants in CA Writ Application Nos. 98/2012 and 61/2012, that they seek to challenge the validity of the Field Staff Circular No. 05/2011 dated 25.11.2011, issued under the hand of the Surveyor General. In addition, the Petitioner-Appellant in CA Writ Application No. 682/2011 sought to challenge the legality of the decision taken by the Land Survey Council (hereinafter referred to as “the Council”), at its 103rd meeting held on 09.02.2012 and under item 103.5 of the agenda, to grant Annual Practising Licences to officers of Sri Lanka Survey Service.

The relevant minutes indicate that the said issue was taken up for consideration by the Council and since the views expressed by the members of the Council were at variance, a vote was taken in terms of the law. Out of the seven of the Council members, four voted in favour of granting licences while the remaining three members voted against. Accordingly, the impugn