In the Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal under Article 128 (2) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, against the Order of the Court of Appeal dated 16^th August

2022.

Ms Kayleigh Frazer

972/4, Kekunagahawatta Road, SC/SPL/L A NO:246/2022 Akuregoda CA/WRT/299/2022 Battaramulla Petitioner

1. Controller General of Immigration Department of Immigration and Emigration Suhurupaya, Sri Subhuthipura, Battaramulla

2. The Attorney General The Attorney General’s Office Respondents And Now Between: Ms Kayleigh Frazer

972/4, Kekunagahawatta Road, Akuregoda Battaramulla Petitioner – Petitioner

1. Controller General of Immigration Department of Immigration and Emigration Suhurupaya, Sri Subhuthipura, Battaramulla

2. The Attorney General The Attorney General’s Office Colombo 12 Respondent-Respondents Before: E. A. G. R. Amarasekara, J.

A. L. Shiran Gooneratne, J.

Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.

Counsels: Nagananda Kodituwakku for the Petitioner- Petitioner Kanishka de Silva Balapatbendi, DSG for the Respondent- Respondents Argued on: 07.06.2023 Decided on: 16.02.2024 E. A. G. R. Amarasekara, J.

The Petitioner-Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioner’) is a British citizen residing in Sri Lanka. She filed the Writ Application No.CA/WRIT/299/2022 in the Court of Appeal against the Controller General of Immigration and Emigration (1^st Respondent) and the Attorney-General (2^nd Respondent). The Petitioner inter alia sought an interim relief staying the operation of alleged deportation order marked X4 with the said application along with the final reliefs of Writ of Certiorari quashing the said alleged decision of deportation marked X4 and a Writ of Mandamus compelling the 1^st Respondent to restore the Petitioner's resident visa status. In fact, the said document marked X4 appears to be a letter informing the cancellation of her visa while advising her to leave the country on or before 15^th August 2022- vide X4 annexed to the Petition. The learned Judge of the Court of Appeal refused to grant the interim relief and issuing notices of this Writ application on the Respondents as prayed for, and dismissed the application for Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus by order dated 16.08.2022. As per the said order marked as X12 with the Petition, the learned Judge of the Court of Appeal has observed as follows;

• That no reasons had been mentioned or averred by the Petitioner to establish her rights to continue to stay in Sri Lanka.

• That even though, the Petitioner had filed a motion annexing a document which refers to an alleged offence of rape, her Counsel categorically indicated that the Petitioner had given instructions to Sri Lanka Police not to proceed with the complaint made by her in that regard.

• That the Petitioner had not alleged any grounds such as legitimate expectation, necessity to take medical treatment or legal requirement of giving evidence or appearing in a pending case before a Court of law.

Even though, the learned Judge of the Court of Appeal has referred to the absolute discretion of the prescribed authority mentioned in the relevant regulations and some case laws that refer to the sole discretion of the Controller, in refusing the application has mentioned as follows;

“Anyhow, I am of the view that in the absence of any reasons establishing the rights of the Petitioner to continue to stay in the country, I should not use my discretion to review the decision of the Controller of Department of Immigration and Emigration. Further, it is observed that the Petitioner has failed to submit sufficient grounds to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.”

The aforementioned observations by the Judge of the Court of Appeal and afore quoted part of the said judgment indicate that the Court of Appeal did not refuse the application as it accepted the fact that the 1^st Respondent Controller had an unquestionable absolute discretion in this matter as alleged by the Petitioner