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 Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition under and in terms of Article 140 read with 126(3) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

C.A. Writ No.83/2023 Athuluwage Chaminda Pushpakumar, 3/2A, School Lane, Niwanthidiya, Piliyandala. Petitioner Vs

1. Mohan Wijerathane, Officer-in-Charge, Financial Crimes Investigation Unit, Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo 01.

2. Attorney-General, Attorney General‟s Department, Colombo 12.

Respondents Before : N. Bandula Karunarathna J. (P/CA)

M. Ahsan R. Marikar J.

Counsel : Manohara de Silva, P.C. with Boopathi Kahathuduwa and Sasiri Chandrasiri for the Petitioner.

Shanil Kularatne, D.S.G. with Shilima David, SC for the Attorney-General.

Argued on : 20.02.2023 Decided on : 15.03.2023.

M. Ahsan R. Marikar J.

Introduction

1. The application made by the Petitioner for the judicial review is whether the Petitioner could be arrested based on the “B” report dated 3rd February 2023, and/or other “B” reports filed in Case No. B 2675/2015 of the Fort Magistrate Court.

Background of the case

2. The Petitioner had made this application as he was the former Chairman of the National Lotteries Board (NLB). During the year 2014 it had been suggested to erect advertising boards to improve the depleting sales of the lotteries.

3. After a survey had been conducted, a board paper had been presented dated 22^nd August 2014, by the Assistant Manager, submitted through the Assistant General Manager (Dealer Administration and Assistant General Manager Sales) and had sought the approval for the erection of

100 large hoardings island wide.

4. The said board paper had been approved at the board meeting.

5. Subsequently another board paper had been presented on 9th September

2014, for erecting another 50 large hoardings prepared by the same Assistant Manager which was approved at the board meeting. The said facts are supported by X1 to X3 documents.

6. Later on quotations had been called for the erection of 150 hoardings. Of the 10 suppliers who submitted the bids, Digi Fact Media (Private) Limited had the lowest bid and the Technical Evaluation Committee had approved the bid submitted by Digi Fact Media (Private) Limited.

7. The Petitioner had specifically stated that he was not a member of the Technical Evaluation Committee that selected the supplier but he was a member of the Departmental Procurement Committee with other representatives.

8. The Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) had filed a “B” Report in the Case No. B 2676/2015 and reported facts to Court on 16^th September 2015, regarding a complaint made by the new Chairman of the National Lotteries Board.

9. Subsequently, the “B” Report dated 3^rd February 2023, had been filed by the FCID and steps were taken to prosecute against the Petitioner.

Argument related to the interim relief claimed by the Petitioner

10. When this application came up to be supported, the President‟s Counsel Manohara De Silva challenged the decision to initiate criminal action through the case bearing No. B 2676/2015 in the Fort Magistrate Court and sought the interim reliefs prayed for in the prayers (E) to (H) on the grounds that there is no reasonable suspicion and/ or documental proof at this stage to arrest the Petitioner and produce before the Magistrate.

11. The Petitioner being the former Chairman of the NLB, had no dealings with the contractor to whom the billboards were awarded.

12. The Deputy Solicitor General Shanil Kularatna who appeared for the Respondent objected the application made by the Counsel for the Petitioner and contended that there are sufficient grounds that the Petitioner had misappropriated the NLB money on issuing the tender and releasing the money to prepare 150 hoardings.

13. On the said grounds we have to consider the following disputed facts to issue or not to issue the interim orders prayed for