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 Mandamus, Certiorari and Prohibition under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Case No: CA/WRIT/41/2024 1. Fairway Latitude (Pvt) Ltd.

No.100, Buthgamuwa Road, Rajagiriya.

PETITIONER Vs.

1. Seylan Bank PLC No.90, Galle Road, Colombo 03.

2. W.M.R.S. Dias Chairman, Seylan Bank PLC No.90, Galle Road, Colombo 03.

3. Ramesh J. Jayasekara

4. S. Viran Corea

5. Sandya K. Salgado

6. D.M.D. Krishan

7. D.M. Rupasinghe

8. L.H.A. Lakshman Silva

9. V.G.S. Sunjeewani

10. Averil A. Ludowyke

3^rd to 10^th Respondents:

Members Board of Directors Seylan Bank PLC No.90, Galle Road, Colombo 03.

11. Chandima Priyadarshani Gamage Licensed Auctioneer No.9-1, High Level Road, Sarvodaya Mawatha, Panagoda, Homagama.

12. Kumar Nandalal Melvani No. 69/7, 12^th Lane, Wickremasinghepura, Battaramulla.

13. Karuwakondage Don Chamath Kaushalya Prematilake No.116/1, Jayagath Road, Nawinna, Maharagama.

RESPONDENTS Before: Hon. D.N. Samarakoon, J.

Counsel: Faiszer Musthapha P.C., with Shaheeda Barrie and Sierra Amarasiri for the petitioner instructed by Sanjeewa Kaluarachchi for the Petitioner.

Avindra Rodrigo P.C., with Shamale de Silva and Nimanga Senanayake instructed by Vayoma Poronagama for 01st to 11th Respondents.

Amila E. Dissanayake with Amila Perera for 12th and 13th respondents.

Heard on: 14.02.2024, 22.02.2024, 27.02.2024 and 04.03.2024 Written Submissions: 18.03.2024 by the Petitioner.

15.03.2024 by 1st to 11th respondents

18.03.2024 by the 12th and 13th Respondents.

Decided on: 09.04.2024 D. N. Samarakoon J., O R D E R O N I N T E R I M O R D E R No court in this country ever, made a correct decision by going beyond the provisions of law laid down by the parliament in its wisdom. It did so, [made a correct decision] by adhering to the letter of that law.

The “Grundnorm” of the law of this country, the Constitution enacted on 07.09.1978 is based on the Rule of Law; and so were the legislation passed by the parliament, until, at least the end of the first sixteen years of the Constitution; and so is the Recovery of Loans by Banks (Special Provisions) Act No. 04 of 1990.

But, it was said, in the now overruled Chellaiah Ramachandran vs. Hatton National Bank 2005 by 04 Judges of the Supreme Court including the incumbent Chief Justice (one Judge dissenting) that, “There is no action, no pleadings, no evidence, no trial? no judgment, no decree and no appeal. In short there is no exercise of judicial power as provided in Article 4 and Article 105(1) of the Constitution and there is a denial of the protection of the law guaranteed by Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Judicial power is used only for its cutting edge of enforcement, shorn of its cherished attributes of fairness, hearing and review in the manner provided by Law. There is a leap to the very end of the judicial process only for ejectment and recovery of possession.”

How can this be reconciled with what was said by this Court in the 2^nd paragraph of this order?

I know, that, there is no need, in law, to do so. Chellaiah Ramachandran 2005 is no longer good law. It was overruled and set aside by a Bench consisting of 07 Judges of the Supreme Court by their unanimous decision on Monday the 13th November 2023 in Sunpac Engineers (Private) Limited and another vs. DFCC Bank and the Auctioneer plus Hatton National Bank, Seylan Bank PLC, Peoples’ Bank, Cargills Bank Limited, National Development Bank PLC, Union Bank of Colombo PLC, Nations Trust Bank PLC, Commercial Bank of Ceylon PLC, Pan Asia Banking Corporation and the Bank of Ceylon.

But, since, that passage from 2005 said, that, at least, the procedure laid down by the above Act is not in accordance with 03 Articles of the Constitution, one might think as to how it could be in compliance with the requirements of the Rule of Law, which this Court said at paragraph 02 above. In fac