Dhammika Ganepola, J.

In the instant application, the Petitioner seeks inter alia a Writs of Mandamus compelling the 1^st, 6^th and 8^th Respondents to complete the payments which are due to the Petitioner as stipulated in paragraph 46 of the Petition, determine the validity of the Tri Party Contract and the Main Contract between the Petitioner, the 5^th Respondent and the 1^st Respondent University under Article 140 of the Constitution, a Writ of Prohibition preventing the 1^st Respondent from utilizing the claimed Performance Guarantee in issue, a Writ of Mandamus compelling 1^st Respondent to return the said claimed Performance Guarantee and Writ of Certiorari to quash the decision of the 1^st Respondent nullifying the Tri Party Agreement in issue.

When this matter was taken up for support, all parties made their respective submissions. This order pertains to the issuance of formal notices on the Respondents. The case of the Petitioner is as follows.

The 1^st and the 5^th Respondents entered into the agreement marked P2 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Main Contract”) for the construction of a new building complex for the 1^st Respondent University Library. After the commencement of the works, initially, the 5^th Respondent had been paid a Mobilisation Advance which amounted to 20% of the entire contract value and thereafter, several interim payments had also been paid for the work completed by the 5^th Respondent.

However, the 5^th Respondent has failed to fulfil the obligations outlined in the main contract as agreed. As a result, the Petitioner assumed the role of sub-contractor for the completion of the project following the execution of a Tri-Party Contract, marked P6, by the Petitioner, the 1^st Respondent, and the 5^th Respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the Tri- Party Contract/Agreement”). As per the said Tri-Party Agreement, the Contractor and Sub-contractor shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the Main Contract. Further, the Petitioner has furnished a Performance Bond as required by the said Tri-Party Contract.

During the course of the works, the Petitioner had continuously made several requests for the outstanding payment for the work executed by the Petitioner from the 1^st Respondent and its employees. However, only a partial payment had been made. Amidst the financial difficulties suffered by the Petitioner Company, the Petitioner has finally decided to suspend the construction work temporarily. Based on the request made and the assurance given by the 1^st Respondent to remove the current compensation ceiling of 20% and to allow the actual price escalation, the Petitioner had recommenced the works. Despite the several reminders forwarded by the Petitioner, no significant response had been received by the Petitioner regarding the completion of the payment due from the 1^st Respondent.

Meanwhile, the Petitioner had come to know of the fact that the 5^th Respondent is undergoing liquidation and had informed the same to the 1^st Respondent, expressing his willingness to continue the construction under a new contract, with the understanding that the Petitioner would serve as the main contractor of the project. However, the 2^nd Respondent, by his letter dated 13^th November 2023, marked as P35, had informed the Petitioner that, as a result of the liquidation of the 5^th Respondent, the Tri-Party agreement is no longer enforceable.

The Petitioner asserts that the 1^st Respondent unilaterally declared the Tri-Party Contract void, as stated in letter P35, and such a decision contradicts Clause 18 of the Tri-Party Contract, amounting to an act of ultra vires.

Thereafter, on several occasions, the Petitioner had renewed the Performance Guarantees in order to secure such Guarantees from being withdrawn by the 1^st Respondent. However, the Petitioner submits that due payments pending to the Petitioner by the 1^st Respondent were not settled. Nevertheless, the 2^nd Respondent, by letter dated 15.05.2024, P41(a), had granted the Petitio