Back
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal from an order of the High Court of the Western Province exercising Revisionary Jurisdiction National Medicines Regulatory Authority No. 120, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. Complainant CA Revision case No.
CA LTA 0012/2025 High Court of Colombo (Revision)
Case No. 112/25 Magistrate’s Court of Maligakanda Vs.
Case No. 52624/23 1. Asiri Hospital Holdings PLC No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05.
2. Vishal Bali Director, Narahenpita, 3. Ashok Kariyawasam Pathirage Chairman/ Managing Director, Narahenpita, 4. Ankur Nand Thadani Director, Asiri Hospital Holdings PLC No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 05.
5. Karunamuni Manjula Prassana Karunarathne Director, Asiri Hospital Holdings PLC No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita Colombo 05.
6. Sudarshan Ahangama Director, Asiri Hospital Holdings PLC No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita Colombo 05.
7. Gardiya Lokuge Haris Premarathne Director, Narahenpita
8. Sivakumar Selliah Deputy Chairman, Narahenpita
9. Haresh Kumara Kaimal Director, Asiri Hospital Holdings PLC No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita Colombo 05.
1010. Ajith Karunarathne Director-Finance, Asiri Hospital Holdings PLC No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita Colombo 05.
1111. B.D. Sadathisaru Assistant Manager- Billing Department, Asiri Hospital Holdings PLC No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita Colombo 05.
Accused AND THEN Narahenpita
2. Ashok Kariyawasam Pathirage Chairman/ Managing Director, Narahenpita, 3. Karunamuni Manjula Prasanna Karunarathne Director, Asiri Hospital Holdings PLC No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita Colombo 05.
4. Haresh Kumara Kaimal Director, Asiri Hospital Holdings PLC No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita Colombo 05.
5. B.D. Sadathisaru Assistant Manager- Billing Department, Asiri Hospital Holdings PLC No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita Colombo 05.
Accused-Petitioners Vs
1. Vishal Bali Director, Narahenpita, 2. Ankur Nand Thadani Director, No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita, 3. Sudarshan Ahangama Director, Asiri Hospital Holdings PLC No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita Colombo 05.
4. Gardiya Lokuge Haris Premarathne Director, Asiri Hospital Holdings PLC No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita Colombo 05.
5. Sivakumar Selliah Deputy Chairman, Asiri Hospital Holdings PLC No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita
6. Ajith Karunarathne Director-Finance, Narahenpita Accused-Respondents National Medicines Regulatory Authority No. 120, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10.
Complainant-Respondent Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent Sanath Kumara Athukorala No. B/5, Madduwa Waththa, High Level Road, Nugegoda.
1st Complainant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN
1. Asiri Hospital Holdings PLC No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita
2. Ashok Kariyawasam Pathirage Chairman/ Managing Director, Narahenpita, 3. Karunamuni Manjula Prasanna Karunarathne Director, Asiri Hospital Holdings PLC No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita Colombo 05.
4. Haresh Kumara Kaimal Director, Asiri Hospital Holdings PLC No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita Colombo 05.
5. B.D. Sadathisaru Assistant Manager- Billing Department, Asiri Hospital Holdings PLC No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita Colombo 05.
Accused-Petitioner-Petitioners Vs.
1. Vishal Bali Director, Narahenpita, 2. Ankur Nand Thadani Director, Narahenpita, 3. Sudarshan Ahangama Director, Asiri Hospital Holdings PLC No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita Colombo 05.
4. Gardiya Lokuge Haris Premarathne Director, Asiri Hospital Holdings PLC No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita Colombo 05.
5. Sivakumar Selliah Deputy Chairman, Asiri Hospital Holdings PLC No. 181/1, Kirula Road, Narahenpita Colombo 05.
6. Ajith Karunarathne Director-Finance, Narahenpita Accused-Respondents-Respondents National Medicines Regulatory Authority No. 120, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10.
Complainant-Respondent-Respondent Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.
Respondent-Respondent Sanath Kumara Athukorala No. B/5, Madduwa Waththa, High Level Road, Nugegoda.
1st Complainant-Respondent-Respondent Before: B. Sasi Mahendran. J, Amal Ranaraja. J, Counsel: Dr. Romesh De Silva, P.C., with Jeewantha Jayathilake, R.
Amarasena and Niran Ankitel instructed by S. Kaluarachchi for the Accused-Petitioner-Petitioners Saliya Peiris, P.C., with Sarinda Jayawardena and Ishan Jayasundera for the 1st Complainant-Respondent-Respondent Lakmini Girihagama, D. S.G. for the State Supported on: 29.10.2025 Written Submissions 06.11.2025 ( by the 1st Complainant-Respondent-Respondent)
On :
Order on: 10.11.2025
ORDER
B. Sasi Mahendran. J,
The Accused-Petitioner-Petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioners') filed a Leave to Appeal application, seeking reliefs outlined in the petition dated 09 October 2025.
a. Issue notice on the respondents;
b. Grant leave to appeal the Order of the High Court in HCRA 112/2025 dated 25th September 2025;
c. Set aside the Order of the High Court in HCRA 112/2025 dated 25th September 2025;
d. Make an order granting the interim relief prayed for in the Petition before the High Court, namely, 1) To say effect of the order date cd 11th July 2025 by the Hon. Magistrate of Maligakanda case No. 52624/23 marked P10 until final determination of the Revision application.
2) Make an interim order staying the proceedings in the Magistrate Court of Maligakanda Case No 52624/23, until the final hearing and determination of the revision Application.
e. Make interim order pending final determination of this application staying the proceedings of the Magistrate’s Court Maligakanda in case No. 52624/23 until HCRA 112/025 is heard and determined.
f. Grant costs;
g. Grant other reliefs On 29th October 2025, when the application for leave to appeal was brought before this Court for support, the Learned Deputy Solicitor General raised a preliminary objection, asserting that the application filed by the Petitioner was legally untenable. It was argued that no legal provision exists allowing the petitioners to seek leave to appeal against an order made by a Provincial High Court in the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction under Article 154P(3)(b) of the Constitution.
It is noteworthy that the Petitioners, in the said petition, have failed to identify or rely upon any specific provision of the Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978 (as amended), the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979 (as amended), or any other relevant statutory enactment that confers jurisdiction for seeking leave to appeal in order to challenge the impugned order.
It is pertinent to examine the factual background of the application before addressing the aforementioned preliminary objection.
The Petitioners, along with other Accused, were charged before the Magistrate's Court for offences under the National Medicines Regulatory Authority Act. On 17.01.2014, a representative entered a plea of guilt on their behalf, and a fine of Rs. 25,000 was imposed. Subsequently, the purported aggrieved party and the Attorney General, representing the National Medicines Regulatory Authority (NMRA), made an application to set aside the said order, contending that the order is illegal. The Magistrate then held an inquiry and, on 11th July 2025, concluded that the earlier order dated 17th January 2024 was per incuriam and issued summons on the Petitioners of the instant application and took steps to proceed with the matter.
After this, the Petitioners filed a revision application bearing case number HCRA 112/2025 in the High Court of the Western Province, holden in Colombo, on the ground that the order made by the Learned Magistrate is illegal.
The matter was taken up for hearing on 10th September 2025, with notice duly issued to the Respondents. On the same date, the Attorney General was absent, while the aggrieved party from the lower court was present. Upon hearing submissions from the parties in attendance, the Learned Judge of the High Court directed that formal notices be issued to the Respondents. However, no interim relief was granted at that stage. When the case was subsequently mentioned on 25th September 2025, the Court declined to issue a stay order, citing the Petitioners' failure to demonstrate that the balance of convenience lay in their favour. The said order was marked as X2.
Being aggrieved by the said Order dated 25th September 2025, the petitioners filed this application along with another revisionary application bearing No. CPA 95/2025, which was not supported.
The central issue for determination in this application is whether the petitioners possess the ri
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
