Back
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for mandates in the nature of Writs of Prohibition and Mandamus under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution.
The Petroleum Dealers' Association, No 230, Lanka Filling Station, Dandugama, Ja- ela.
PETITIONER Vs.
Court of Appeal Case No:
CA/WRIT/540/23
1. Kanchana Wijesekara, Minister of Power and Energy, No. 80, Sir Ernest de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 07.
1A. Hon. E.N.G. Kumara Jayakody, Minister of Energy No. 80, Sir Ernest de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 07.
2. M.P.D.U.K Pathirana, Secretary, Ministry of Power and Energy, No. 80, Sir Ernest de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 07.
12A. Dr. Sulakshana Jayawardane, Secretary, Ministry of Power and Energy, No. 80, Sir Ernest de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 07.
22B. Prof. K.T.M. Udayanga Hemapala, Secretary, Ministry of Energy, No. 80, Sir Ernest de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 07.
33. Cargills Ceylon PLC, No. 40, York Street, Colombo-01 RESPONDENTS Lanka IOC PLC, Level 20, West Tower World Trade Center, Colombo 01 ADDED-RESPONDENTS Before: Mayadunne Corea, J Mahen Gopallawa, J Counsel: Ronald Perera, P.C. with Chandimal Mendis and Ashiq Haseem instructed by Sanath Wijewardane for the Petitioner Manohara Jayasinghe, D.S.G. with Pulina Jayasuriya S.C. for the 1st and
2nd Respondents Harsha Amarasekara, P.C. with Kanchana Pieris instructed by MJ Associates for the 3rd Respondent Supported on: 02.10.2025 Order delivered on: 31.10.2025 Mayadunne Corea J The Petitioner has sought the following reliefs, inter alia, from this Court:
“e) Grant and issue a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Prohibition restraining the
3rd Respondent from establishing and/or operating a fuel shed, filling station or petroleum dealership at Cargills Food City Kotalawala, Cargills Food City premises Wattala or any other premises of the 3rd Respondent, in a manner that is contrary to law, regulations, established procedure, circulars and/or regulations.
f) Grant and issue a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Prohibition restraining the
1st and/or 2nd Respondent/s or any or more of them from granting , issuing and/or permitting the establishment and/or operation and/or continuation of any filling station, fuel shed or petroleum dealership in a manner contrary to the provisions of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation Act and/or Petroleum Products (Special Provisions) Act and the rules, procedures and regulations applicable to the said industry.
g) Grant and issue a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Prohibition restraining the
1st and/or 2nd Respondent/s or any one or more of them from acting in derogation of and/or in any manner contrary to the Committee Report on Criteria for Setting Up of New Filling Stations in Sri Lanka – Ministry of Petroleum Resources Development dated 02.05.2016 (P8) in regard to granting, issuing and/or permitting the establishment and/or operation and/or continuation of any filling station, fuel shed or petroleum dealership.
h) Grant and issue a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the
1st and/or 2nd Respondent/s or any one or more of them to process any and all applications seeking permission to operate a fuel shed, filling station or petroleum dealership strictly in accordance with the provisions of the laws, regulations, established procedure and guidelines thereto.”
Factual matrix
The facts of the case briefly are as follows. The Petitioner alleges that the Petitioner is a company limited by guarantee and incorporated by the laws of Sri Lanka, and marked the certificate of incorporation as P1. It is further submitted that the affidavit annexed is by the Vice President of the Petitioner Association, who also happens to have a petrol distributing centre in Kaduwela. It is further alleged that the members of the Petitioner have petrol stations with due approvals and have invested a substantial amount of money to finance the setting up of their filling stations. It is the Petitioner’s contention that the owners of the filling stations have to satisfy certain requirements to obtain permission to operate a filling station or a petroleum dealership, and submit that they believe the same requirements need to be fulfilled to obtain a dealership with Lanka IOC.
The Petitioner alleges that in 2016, the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation had commenced a project with the University of Moratuwa to conduct a study to establish the criteria in selecting locations for new filling stations. For this purpose, a committee had been appointed. It is the Petitioner’s contention that the said committee had submitted a report marked as P8 where the proposed locations have been identified to establish new filling stations. It is in this back drop two filling stations had been opened at the Kaduwela and Wattala Cargills Food City premises. It is the argument of the Petitioner that the opening of the two filling stations is in violation of the recommendations in P8. The affirmant whose affidavit is filed in support of the Petition who is also the Vice President of the Petitioner contends that when his own filling station in Kaduwela is in operation, there is no necessity for the existence of another filling station in the area. The main concern of the learned President’s Counsel for the Petitioner is that in light of the new filling station, especially in the Kaduwela area, where the Vice President of the Petitioner has his own filling station in existence, impedes the business of his filling station. The Petitioner has vehemently objected to the new filling station. However, it is alleged that there had been no response from the Respondents. Hence, this Writ Application.
The Petitioner’s contention
The Petitioner contends that the Ministry of Petroleum Development had called for a committee report on the criteria for the setting up of new filling stations in Sri Lanka. The said report is marked as P8. It is the Petitioner’s contention that the annexure to the report identifies the areas where new filling stations should be located, and the said report marked P8 is still valid. Thereby, the Petitioner alleged that the filling station in Kaduwela is in violation of the criteria laid down in P8.
The Respondent’s contention
The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents vehemently objected to the application on the following grounds:
• The document P8 has no legal status.
• Necessary parties are not before the Court.
• Laches by the Petitioner.
• The 1st and 2nd Respondents had acted in accordance with the law.
• The Petitioner’s prayers are ambiguous and futile.
• The Petitioner has no legal right to seek the reliefs it claims.
At the outset, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he is no longer pursuing the interim reliefs and is only pursuing the substantive reliefs.
Analysis
I will now consider the Petitioner’s submissions with the Respondents’ contention. The Petitioner’s main contention is that by indiscriminate issuance of permits to open up filling stations the existing filling station’s income is affected and therefore, taking this fact into consideration the Ministry of Petroleum Resource Development has decided to formulate a criterion to establish locations for new filling stations and this was done by the University of Moratuwa in collaboration with the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, which resulted in P8.
It is the Petiti
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
