IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application under Article 12(1), 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

SC (FR) Application No. 498/2012 Punchi Hewage Ajithsena Silva, Kutukende Estate Nikadalupotha, Kurunegala.

Presently, No. 22/A Mahaviara Road, Lakshapathiya, Moratuwa.

Petitioner Vs.

1. Bank of Ceylon, No 4, Lanka Banku Mawatha, Colombo 01.

2. Chief legal officer, Bank of Ceylon, No 4, Lanka Banku Mawatha, Colombo 01.

3. P.A.G Weerakoon Banda Chief Manager Properties, Bank of Ceylon, No 4, Lanka Banku Mawatha, Colombo 01.

4. D.N.J Costa, Assistant General Manager Bank of Ceylon, Colombo 01.

5. S Liyanawala No. 1 No 4, Lanka Banku Mawatha, Colombo.

6. Hon. Attorney- General, Attorney General’s Office, Colombo 12. Respondents Before: Priyantha Jayawardena PC, J P. Padman Surasena, J E. A. G. R. Amarasekara, J Counsel: Pradeep Kumarasinghe for the Petitioner Ms. Yuresha de Silva SSC, for the Respondents Argued on: 28^th of January, 2019 Decided on: 29^th of February, 2024 Priyantha Jayawardena PC, J Facts of the application The petitioner filed the instant application alleging that the respondents exercised powers contrary to the provisions of the Bank of Ceylon Ordinance, No. 53 of 1938 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as the “Bank of Ceylon Ordinance”) in refusing to refund the money after the property mortgaged to the bank was re-sold to a third party. Thus, it violated his Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

The petitioner stated that the Katukenda Trading Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “borrowing company”), obtained a sum of Rs. 1,000,000 as a loan from the Wellawatte branch of Bank of Ceylon (hereinafter referred to as the “bank”). As a security for the said loan, the petitioner, being a director of the said borrowing company, mortgaged his personal property (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgaged property”) under a Mortgage Bond No. 2636 dated 3^rd of January, 2000 which was attested by Chandani Mathew, Notary Public. The petitioner stated that he paid a sum of Rs.1,128,000/- in settlement of the loan. However, despite the said payments, the bank exercised the powers under the said Ordinance and auctioned the said property. However, as there were no bidders at the said public auction, the bank purchased the mortgaged property that was worth about Rs.17,500,000/- for only a sum of Rs.1000/-.

Furthermore, the petitioner stated that upon hearing that the bank was opting for a resale, he introduced one of his relations to the bank in order to purchase the property under reference for a sum of Rs. 12,500,000/- and to settle the mortgage. However, the former Assistant General Manager of the Bank refused to sell the property to his relative and stated that being the new owner of the mortgaged property, the Bank would decide to whom the property would be sold. Subsequently, the respondent bank is alleged to have sold the said property to a third-party on the 2^nd of October, 2009.

The petitioner further stated that since the mortgaged property is worth about Rs.17,500,000/- and the loan was obtained only for Rs. 1,000,000/-, he had requested the Chairman of the bank to give him the details of the outstanding sum, the interests and other dues on the loan granted to him.

Furthermore, the petitioner stated that the respondents by letters dated 22^nd of May, 2012 and 18^th of June, 2012 informed him that they would respond to the petitioner’s letters in due course. However, by letter dated 27^th of July, 2012 the bank informed that it was unable to disclose the details requested by the petitioner as the said bank is the present owner of the said property.

In the meantime, the bank had instituted case Nos. 5333/M and 5334/M at the District Court of Mount Lavinia for the recovery of Rs.900,000/- due from the said borrowing company in respect of two different loans granted to the said company.

In these c