AMARASINGHE AND OTHERS Vs

AMARASINGHE AND OTHERS

Vs.

CENTRAL ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

COURT OF APPEAL
OBEYESEKERE, J. (P/CA)
CA/WRlT/132/2018
SEPTEMBER 10, 2020

Writs of certiorari and mandamus-National Environment Act-Urban Development Authority Law-Environmental pollution-Public interest litigation-Relief should not be vague-Impugned decision should be produced by the petitioner

The petitioners, a group of residents of Nugegoda, alleged that the 5th and 6th respondents were carrying on a printing business in their neighbourhood without complying with the relevant environmental laws and local authority regulations. They further alleged that the 1st to 4th respondents, namely the Central Environmental Authority, Urban Development Authority, Municipal Commissioner of the Sri Jayewardenepura Kotte Municipal Council, and the Board of Investment of Sri Lanka, had entered into agreements with the 5th and 6th petitioners. The petitioners alleged that the 1st to 4th respondents had failed to address the petitioners' grievances, and that such inaction and/or failure and/or

neglect to perform statutory duties is contrary to several domestic and international legal instruments. The petitioners sought inter alia a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to act under and in terms of the National Environment Act and specifically under sections 10, 16, 17, 22, 23, 23A, 23B, 23D, 23G, 23H, 23J, 23K, 23N, 23P, 23Q, 23R, 23V, 23X, 23AA, 23CC, 23DD, 23EE, 23FF, 24, 24A, 24B and 24C and a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to act under and in terms of the Urban Development Authority Law and especially under sections 8(a), 8(b), 8(i), 8(p), 8(q), 8(r), 8(s), 8(t), 8(u), 8(v), 8A, 8B, 8F, BG, 8K, 15, 19C, 21, 28 and 28A. Similarly framed writs of mandamus were prayed for against the 3rd and 4th respondents.

Held:

1. A petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal must seek relief that would address their grievance and must not refer to each and every section in an Act hoping that his case would come under at least one of those sections. The relief that is sought must be specific and should address the concerns of the petitioner. The relief sought in this application is vague and the application is liable to be dismissed in limine.

2. The decision(s) that is/are being impugned must be produced by the petitioners, thereby affording the respondents an opportunity of setting out the basis for the issuance of the relevant licenses and also of explaining whether the terms and conditions of the licenses have been complied with. The decision must also be available for the court to examine, as the court is exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 140 of the Constitution and cannot quash documents that are not before it.

Cases referred to:

1. Weerasooriya v. Chairman, National Housing Development Authority and others (CA/WRIT/866/98, CA Minutes of 08.03.2014)

2. Hatton National Bank PLC v. Commissioner General of Labour and others (CA/WRIT/457/2011, CA Minutes of 31.01.2020)

APPLICATION for Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus.

Ravindranath Dabare for the Petitioners.

Kanishka De Silva Balapatabendi, S.S.C., for the 1st-2nd, 4th and 7th Respondents.

Neville Abeyratne, P.C., with Kaushalya Abeyratne Dias for the 3A Respondent.

Saliya Peiris, P.C., with D. Thabrew for the 5th-6th Respondents.

cur. adv. vult.

June 3, 2021

OBEYESEKERE, J. (P/CA)

The Petitioners state that they are residents of Nugegoda. The Petitioners state further that in close proximity to their residence, the 5th and 6th Respondents, which are two limited liability companies, are carrying on a printing business/industry involving sublimation printing, screen printing, heat transfer etc. The Petitioners claim that the said printing industry carried out by the 5th and 6th Respondents have become a serious threat to public health and wellbeing of the Petitioners and o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document