IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for the issue of a Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

M. M. Chandana Deshapriya Perera, 327/A, Kienavinna, Dunagaha and 320 others Petitioners C. A. Writ Application No. 59/2020 Vs.

V. N. Jayasooriya, Chairman, Gampaha District Thrift and Credit Co operative Soceities Union Ltd.

No.99, Colombo Road, Gampaha.

1A. S. S. R de Silva of above address and 17 others Respondents Before: Hon. D.N. Samarakoon J., Hon. Neil Iddawala J., Counsel: Saliya Peiris P.C with Thanuka Nandasiri and Eshan De Silva for the Petitioners.

J.M. Wijebandara with Kavindya Kuruwita Arachchi for the 1b, 3b, 5b, 6b,7b, 8b and 9b Respondents.

Sumathi Dharmawardena P.C. A.S.G. with Medhaka Fernando S.C. for the 10th to 18th Respondents in Writ 59-20 Sumathi Dharmawardena P.C. A.S.G. with N. De Zoysa S.C. for the

10th and 11th Respondents in Writ 16-22 Written Submissions on:

16.06.2023 by the 10th to 18th Respondents

16.06.2023 by the 1B, 3B, 5B, 6B,7B, 8B & 9B Respondents Date: 07.09.2023 D.N. Samarakoon, J.

O R D E R

The written submissions of the 1B,3B,5B,6B,7B,8B and 9B respondents summarises what happened and what has to be done. It says, “This application was filed on the 05th of May 2020. This was supported for notice only on 18th May 2023. At the stage of hearing given on the question of issuance of notice all parties made oral submissions. At the conclusion of oral submissions Your Lordships’ Court directed parties to file written submissions. On the question of as to whether notice should be issued to the respondents at the first instance, or not”.

This case came to be called before myself from 19.01.2022 and at that time the connected matter Writ 16 2022 was being taken up before Court No. 303. Application was made to have both cases in one court and I directed that either that case can come to this court, or this case can go to that court. The matter was resolved by the Hon. President who sent that case too before this court. The case was called before the present Bench of this court on 18th May 2023, when it was supported, as said above.

There are two sets of objections for the issuing of notice. They are, (01) 10th to 18th respondents represented by the state. They are mainly, (a) The relief has already been granted, (b) The relief is vague or ambiguous, (c) There is no statutory duty (02) 01st to 09th respondents, except 02nd and 04th, as indicated from their representatives in the opening sentence of this order. Their objections, while overlap with those of the state, also finds a basis on characteristics of the writ of mandamus and its alleged non availability.

This court will respond to the above objections in that order.

To understand the first set of objections, one must know about the reliefs prayed for. They refer to the Co operative Societies Statute No. 03 of 1996. They are in summary, (the paragraphs in the prayer of the petition are given)

(d) A mandamus directing the 11th respondent Commissioner of Cooperative Development of Western Province to investigate as provided in sections 46 and 47 into the misappropriation of membership fees or funds, (this is the inquiry the first set of respondents say they did)

(e) A mandamus directing the 11th respondent to settle the whole or part of the deposits the petitioners deposited in the Gampaha District Thrift and Credit Co operative Societies Union Ltd., under sections 19 to 55, (this is what the first set of respondents say vague or ambiguous)

(f) A mandamus directing the 11th respondent to resolve the dispute by himself under section 58, (g) A mandamus directing the 11th respondent to resolve the dispute through arbitration under section 58, (in respect of (f) and (g) both, the argument of both the sets of respondents is that the petitioners are not members or associate members and hence under section 5