2024 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 783
COURT OF APPEAL
Hon. B. SasiMahendran J
Susara Bandara Thennakoon The President Ekabadda Swechcha Balamandalaya Sri Wisuddharama Temple Dutuwewa. and others – Appellant
Versus
Herath Mudiyanselage Mangalika Herath and others – Respondent
CA WRIT 236-23
IN THE COURET OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application for mandate in the nature of writs of certiorari and Mandamus under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist republic of Sri Lanka.
CA WRIT 236-23 Herath Mudiyanselage Mangalika Herath No. 510, Kokawewa, Getalawa, Dutuwewa.
Petitioner Vs.
1. J.M. S.N. SamanJayasinghe The Commissioner General of Excise Department of Excise, No. 353, Kotte Road Rajagiriya.
2. KapilaKumarasinghe Commissioner of Excise (revenue Operation)
Department of excise, No. 353, Kotte Road Rajagiriya.
3. C.J.A. Weerakkodi Deputy Commissioner of Excise (Legal)
Department of excise, No. 353, Kotte Road Rajagiriya.
4. S. K. Wanigathunga The Assistant Commissioner of Excise (North Central Province)
Assistant Commissioner of Excise Office, Anuradhapura
5. T.M.H.S.S.Herath Superintendent of Excise (Anuradhapura)
Excise Office, Anuradhapura.
6. A.P.A. Bandula Officer In Charge of Excise Excise Office Kebithigollewa
7. G.M.K.r. Priyadarshana Divisional Secretariat Divisional Secretariat Office Galenbindunuwewa Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN Application for Intervention
1. Susara Bandara Thennakoon The President Ekabadda Swechcha Balamandalaya Sri Wisuddharama Temple Dutuwewa.
2. Nandana Kumara Samarakoon The Secretary Ekabadda Swechcha Balamandalaya Sri Wisuddharama Temple Dutuwewa.
3. HerathMudiyanselageAbeyratne The Treasurer EkabaddaSwechchaBalamandalaya Sri Wisuddharama Temple Dutuwewa.
Party seeking to be added as an Intervenient Petitioners Vs.
Herath Mudiyanselage Mangalika Herath No. 510, Kokawewa, Getalawa, Dutuwewa.
Petitioner-Respondent
1. J.M. S.N. SamanJayasinghe The Commissioner General of Excise Department of excise, No. 353, Kotte Road Rajagiriya.
2. KapilaKumarasinghe Commissioner of Excise (revenue Operation)
Department of excise, No. 353, Kotte Road Rajagiriya.
3. C.J.A. Weerakkodi Deputy Commissioner of Excise (Legal) Department of excise, No. 353, Kotte Road Rajagiriya.
4. S. K. Wanigathunga The Assistant Commissioner of Excise (North Central Province)
Assistant Commissioner of Excise Office, Anuradhapura 5. T.M.H.S.S.Herath Superintendent of Excise (Anuradhapura) Excise Office, Anuradhapura.
6. A.P.A. Bandula Officer In Charge of Excise Excise Office Kebithigollewa
7. G.M.K.r. Priyadarshana Divisional Secretariat Divisional Secretariat Office Galenbindunuwewa Respondents Before: N. BandulaKarunarathna P/CA, J.
B. SasiMahendran, J.
Counsel: SaliyaPieris, PC with SusilWanigarathnaand AndreaWijewanshafor The Petitioner Neville Abeyratne, PC with KaushalyaAbyeratne Dias for the Party seeking Intervention Nayomi Kahavita, SSC for the Respondents.
Inquired On: 08.07.2024 Written 01.07.2024 (by the Seeking to as an Intervenient Party)
Submissions:
On Order On: 05.08.2024 B. SasiMahendran, J This order is pertaining to whether to permit the Intervenient-Petitioners to intervene in this application. The Intervenients sought to intervene in the application to file their statement of objections to the petition and move for dismissal of the Petition of the Petitioner. The question that has to be decided is whether such an intervention could be permitted.
The Petitioner instituted this application, seeking for an order in the nature ofa writ of Certiorari quashing the decision of the 1st Respondent, the Commissioner General of Excise,refusing to grant her a renewal of the excise license for the sale of foreign liquor at No.42, Ellumgasyaya, Dutuwewa. She also asked for a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to grant a renewal of the said license.
When the matter came before this Court on 29.05.2024 for argument, the Counsels appearing for all the parties requested this Court to pronounce the order pertaining to the application for intervention after considering the written submissions, dispensing with their necessity of making oral submissions.
The facts of the present case are briefly as follows:
The Petitioner was carrying out a business under the