IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for a Revision and Restitutio-in-Integrum under Article 138(1) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

CA/RII/55/2023 M.C. Colombo Case No:

3153/02/23 Ranjan Malien Dedigama, No.239, High-level Road, Maharagama.

Petitioner-Petitioner -Vs-

1. The Officer in Charge Borella Police Station, Borella.

2. The Officer in Charge Divisional Crime Investigations Bureau, Colombo South Division, Bambalapitiya.

Respondent- Respondents

3. The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent Before: Hon. D.N. Samarakoon, J.

Counsel: Mr. Mahinda Nanayakkara instructed by Mr. Niluka Dissanayake for the Petitioner-Petitioner.

Ms. Suharshi Herath, D.S.G., for the Respondents.

Supported on: 09.01.2024 Synopsis tendered on: 16.01.2024 by the Petitioner-Petitioner.

18.01.2024 by the Respondent-

Respondents.

Decided on: 26.01.2024 D. N. Samarakoon J., Order on Preliminary Objections and Notice (A) How this case originated in this Court and was heard:

This application by Ranjan Malien Dedigama, the petitioner was filed in this Court on 07^th December 2023. The petitioner requested 11.12.2023, 14.11.2023 and 15.12.2023 to support this matter. It has come before me on 12.12.2023 at 4.20 p.m. and I have given 14.12.2023 for support. When it came up for support on 14.12.2023 the learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared in Court. However since the copy of the docket of the other Judge who sat with me then, Justice Neil Iddawala had not come to Court and also the learned counsel moved to amend papers and support the next date given was 19.12.2023.

The learned President of the Court of Appeal had directed me to sit as Single Judge from 18.12.2023 due to the resignation of Justice Iddawala which made the vacancies in the Court of Appeal three and the circumstances pertaining to that were morefully stated in my order dated 22.12.2023 in Writ 810/2023. Several matters were heard and in certain of them orders were given during the week from 18^th December to 22^nd December as directed by me where the application arose in my Court (like this case) and in certain other matters which were sent by the learned President despite it being the period of the “Suspension of Sittings of the Open Court1”.

This matter was taken up for support on 19.12.2023 at 11.35 a.m. But at 11.55 a.m. during the course of supporting this matter, the Court noted, that, the Attorney General has not been made a party respondent. The relevant part of that day’s journal entry says, “Time is 11.55 a.m. and in the course of Mr. Nanayakkara supporting this matter the Court observed as there are two respondents who are Officers in Charge of Police Stations, the Petitioner should make the Attorney General also a party.

Since there is an urgency in this matter according to Mr. Nanayakkara, the Court allows him to amend papers and support this matter with direct notice to the present respondents and also to the Attorney General on Friday, 22.12.2023 at

10.00 a.m. before this Court”.

On 22.12.2023, this matter came up for support at 10.55 a.m. according to that day’s journal entry. The petitioner and the 03rd respondent Attorney General were represented, the latter by learned Senior State Counsel Mr. S. Wickrema. Mr. Wickrema said that he received notice only on that day and he does not have instructions from the 01^st and 02^nd respondents who are Officers in Charge of Police Stations. The learned counsel for the petitioner moved to support the

1 The above case, C. A. Writ 810/2023 in its order dated 22.12.2023 morefully discusses also about the period

popularly but colloquially known as the “Court Vacation” and its origin.

matter as an urgent matter under Rule 2(1)(a) of Court of Appeal, Appellate Procedure, Rules of 1990. But the Court indicated, that, since direct notices were issued by the petitioner at least twice and as the Attorney General is already re