IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application in Revision and for the exercise of the inherent power and jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

1. Nagananda Kodituwakku General Secretary CA/WRIT/137/2022 Vinivida Foundation, 99, Subadrarama Road, Nugegoda.

PETITIONER Vs.

1. Chandana Suriyabandara Director General Department of Wildlife Conservation, 811A, Jayanthipura, Battaramulla.

2. Chandana Wickramarathna Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo 1.

3. Thilak Premarathna Director General National Zoological Department, Dharmapala Mawatha, Dehiwala.

4. Rev. Bellanwila Dhammarathana Bellanwila Rajamaha Viharaya, Dehiwala Road, Bellanwila.

5. Wimalaweera Dissanayake Former Minister of Wildlife Conservation And now C.B.Ratnayake Ministry of Wildlife Conservation

1090, Sri Jayawardanapura, Battaramulla.

6. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12.

RESPONDENTS And now between

1. Nagananda Kodituwakku General Secretary Vinivida Foundation, 99, Subadrarama Road, Nugegoda.

PETITIONER - PETITIONER Vs.

1. Chandana Suriyabandara Director General Department of Wildlife Conservation, 811A, Jayanthipura, Battaramulla.

2. Chandana Wickramarathna Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo 1.

3. Thilak Premarathna Director General National Zoological Department, Dharmapala Mawatha, Dehiwala.

4. Rev. Bellanwila Dhammarathana Viharadhipathi Bellanwila Rajamaha Viharaya, Dehiwala Road, Bellanwila.

5. Wimalaweera Dissanayake Former Minister of Wildlife Conservation And now C.B.Ratnayake Ministry of Wildlife Conservation

1090, Sri Jayawardanapura, Battaramulla.

6. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12.

RESPONDENTS - RESPONDENTS Before: Sobhitha Rajakaruna J.

Dhammika Ganepola J.

Counsel: Petitioner-Petitioner appeared in person P. Ranasinghe PC ASG with Shemanthi Dunuwille SC for the 1st to 3rd and 7th to

8th Respondents- Respondents.

Supported on: 08.11.2023 Decided on: 08.11.2023 Sobhitha Rajakaruna J.

The Application bearing No. CA/WRIT/137/2022 has been finally concluded and this Court has delivered its final Judgment on 07.08.2023. The Petitioner-Petitioner (‘Petitioner’) has filed a purported ‘Revision Petition’ dated 09.10.2023 seeking to set aside the said Judgement dated 07.08.2023.

In terms of Article 139(1) of the Constitution, the Court of Appeal may in the exercise of its jurisdiction affirm, reverse, correct or modify any order, judgment, decree or sentence of a Court of First Instance according to law. This Court exercises the Writ jurisdiction under Article 140 of the Constitution as a Court of First Instance in respect of Writ applications such as the Petitioner’s original Application bearing No. CA/WRIT/137/2022. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that this Court has no jurisdiction to affirm, reverse, correct or modify the said Judgment dated 07.08.2023. However, this Court may exercise its jurisdiction to a certain extent on an Application based on the doctrine of per incuriam.

The established rule is that a judge who has given the judgment no longer has the capacity to correct his decision as the judge has completed discharging his duty once the judgment has been delivered. The Roman jurist Ulpian has stated that after a judge has delivered his judgment, he immediately ceases to be the judge1

1“hoc jure utimur ut judex qui semel vel pluris vel minoris condemnavit, amplius corrigere sententiam suam non posset; semel enim male vel bene officio functus est.” (see: Alexandr Koptev, “Digestae Justinian” The

Latin Library at Book 42, Title 1, Note 55)

The Petitioner in the said purported ‘Revision Petition’ claims that the said Judgement dated 07.08.2023 is a single judge order and it is per incuriam. It needs to be stressed that the said Judgement of this Court is a unanimous decision of two Hon. Judges of the Court of Appeal and both the Judges have placed their signatures therein. The Petitioner relies on the judgment in Jeyaraj Fernando