IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Section 34 of the Right to Information Act No. 12 of 2016 read together with Article 136 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

CA/RTI/REV/04/2022 RTIC Appeal No: 600/2021 The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka No.30A, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. PETITIONER -Vs-

1. Lional Dissanayake, No.3/211, 3rd Lane, Colombo Road, Bandiyamulla, Gampaha.

2. Right to Information Commission Room No. 203-204, BMICH, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07.

3. Justice Upaly Abeyratne (Retired)

Chairman, Right to Information Commission.

4. Kishali Pinto- Jayawardena Commissioner, Right to Information Commission.

5. Justice Rohini Walgama (Retired)

Commissioner, Right to Information Commission

6. Jagath Liyanaarachchi Commissioner, Right to Information Commission

7. S.R.W.M.R.P. Sathkumara, Director General (Acting)

Right to Information Commission All of Room No. 203-204, BMICH, Baudhhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07.

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

Hon. Neil Iddawala J.

Counsel: Mr. Kushan De Alwis, P.C. instructed by Mr. Hiran Jayasuriya with Ms. Maithrika Kurukulasuriya for the Petitioner.

Mr. Harith De Mel, P.C. instructed by Ms. Hasini Rupasinghe for the

1st Respondent.

Ms. Himalee Kularathna for the 7th Respondent.

Argued on: 06.09.2023 Written submission tendered on: 06.10.2023 by the Petitioner Decided on: 14.12.2023 D. N. Samarakoon J., The preliminary objection of the 01st respondent, who is the person who sought the intervention of the Right to Information Commission, is that the petitioner “The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka” cannot maintain the present application since it is not an appeal which is provided in section 34 of the Right to Information Act but a revision application.

Section 34(1) says, “A citizen or public authority who is aggrieved by the decision of the Commission made under section 32 may appeal against such decision to the Court of Appeal within one month of the date on which such decision was communicated to such citizen or public authority”.

It is also submitted for the 01st respondent, that, the reference to the rules made under Article 136 of the Constitution pertaining to revision applications to be applied in respect of every appeal clearly show the intention of the legislature to limit the section to appeals and to exclude revision from a decision made in terms of section 32 of the Act. (paragraph 3.8 of Written Submissions of the 01^st respondent)

It is also submitted, that, in fact the intention of the legislature was to exclude revision as a remedy under the law by only providing for a right to appeal in section 34(1). (paragraph 3.23 of the above Written Submission)

The 01^st respondent also submits, that, although applications by way of revision against a decision of the 2^nd respondent Commission is not expressly prohibited in section 34, the express provision of the right to appeal in terms of section 34(1) and the express provision for the application of the rules of the Court of Appeal pertaining to revision applications to applications filed by way of appeal under section 34(2) clearly indicates the intention of the legislature to exclude revisionary jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in respect of decisions made under section 32 of the Right to Information Act by law”. (paragraph 3.34 of the above Written Submissions)

Having cited several cases too, the crux of the objection of the 01^st respondent is that the Right to Information Act in giving a right of appeal has effectively excluded the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court.

It is pertinent to examine the origin of the revisionary jurisdiction.

BUGALO MARIPE, of South Africa in his Doctoral Thesis “THE REVISIONARY JURISDICTION OF THE HIGHER COURTS OF BOTSWANA AND ENGLAND IN THE REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF PRIVATE BODIES” dated February 2022, dealing with “History of revisionary powers