RAJENDRAN

VS.

COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF EXCISE AND OTHERS

SUPREME COURT
ALUWIHARE, J.
FERNANDO, J.
THURAIRAJA, J.
SC/APPEAL/43/2019
SC/SPL/LA/107/2017
CA/WRIT/62/2014
AUGUST 7, 2020

Power of attorney-Death of one of the grantors- Termination of power of attorney-Power of Attorney Ordinance, No. 4 of 1902, section 2-Liquor licence-Excise Ordinance, No. 8 of 1912, section 56-Locus standi

Three liquor licences were issued in the name of two persons as co- licencees. They jointly appointed the appellant as their power of attorney holder to manage and transact all affairs in respect of the liquor business and the said licence. One of the licencees subsequently died and the licence was issued to the remaining person as the sole licencee. Later, the person who was actually conducting the liquor business was found to be in violation of the provisions of the Excise Ordinance and regulations made there under, and a fine was imposed. The appellant as the power of attorney holder of the licencee challenged this decision by way of a writ application in the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed it for want of focus standi on the part of the appellant. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held :

Any document executed or thing done by an agent on the strength of a power of attorney is as effective as if executed or done by the principal himself. When two principals grant certain powers to an agent, it is the joint power of the two that is conferred. Therefore, upon the death of one of them, the joint power and authority conferred would cease to exist, thereby terminating the power of attorney. Similarly, the death of one of two agents terminates the authority of the other. The appellant had no focus standi to file a writ application on the strength of the power of attorney.

Held further :

In terms of section 12 of the Excise Notification No. 666 of 1979 issued under the Excise Ordinance, the appointment of an agent for the management of manufacturing, supplying, selling or any interest derived from the licences issued to the licencee is expressly prohibited unless inter alia prior approval has been obtained from the Government Agent or Commissioner of Excise regarding such management. This has not been done.

Cases referred to :

1. Tmt Kasthuri Radhakrishnan and others v. M. Chinniyan and another 2016 sew 609

2. Garvin v. Abeywardene (1923) 24 NLR 382

3. Ponnusami Pillai v. Chidambaram Chettiar 1918 Mad 279

APPEAL from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Sanjeewa Jayawardena, P.C., with Lakmini Warusawithana for the Petitioner-Appellant.

Vikum De Abrew, S.D.S.G., for the Respondent-Respondents.

cur. adv. vult.

July 9, 2021

THURAIRAJA, J.

The Parties

The Petitioner-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) in the case is Rajagopal Rajendran who claims to hold the Power of Attorney of Liyanage Charitha, the licensee of Udaya Wine Stores. The 1st Respondent-Respondent (here in after referred to as the 1st Respondent) is D.G.M.V. Hapuarachchi who was the Commissioner of Excise at the time, whereas 1A Added Respondent-Respondent; Mrs. K.H.A. Meegasmulla, and 1B Added Respondent-Respondent; Mrs. Ranasinghe Semasinghe had succeeded to the position of Commissioner of Excise and 1C Added Respondent-Respondent; Mr. Ranasinghe Semasinghe, is the current Commissioner of Excise. The 2nd Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 2nd Respondent) Wasantha Dissanayake, is the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, who had issued the purported Technical Crime Report to the said wine stores.

This is an appeal filed by the Appellant against the Order in Case No. CA/WRIT/62/2014 delivered in the Court of Appeal on 31st March, 2017 in regard to an application for the issuance of writs of Certiorari and Prohibition as per Article 140 of the Constitution. The case was dismissed by the Court of Appeal observing the lack of locus standi of the Appellant on the basis th