MADUGALLE

Vs.

NATIONAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

COURT OF APPEAL
SAMAYAWARDHENA, J.
CA/WRIT/540/2019
JUNE 9, 2020

Writ of certiorari-Violation of contractual obligations-Invoking writ jurisdiction to enforce contractual obligations of a public authority

By a deed of transfer, the 1st and 2nd respondents sold a residential condominium unit together with an identified parking space to the petitioner. Thereafter the 2nd respondent earmarked the said parking space to be sold to the 7th respondent, a private company, together with some other allotments. The petitioner filed this application seeking to quash the said decision by certiorari.

Held:

1. The petitioner is not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction to remedy the situation. The petitioner's grievance stems from the alleged violation of a contractual obligation based on the deed of transfer. The proper forum for the petitioner to seek redress is the District Court.

2. The subject matter of the application, which is based on a commercial transaction, eminently falls within the sphere of private law and not public law. The decision sought to be quashed by certiorari was not made in the exercise of any statutory power. The petitioner does not make such a claim either. Rights accrued out of a contractual relationship devoid of statutory flavour are outside the scope of writ jurisdiction, irrespective of the alleged violator being a public authority.

Cases referred to:

1. Jayaweera v. Wijeratne [1985] 2 Sri LR 413
2. Weligama Multi Co-operative Society v. Daluwatte [1984] 1 Sri LR 195 at 199
3. Gawarammana v. The Tea Research Board [2003] 3 Sri LR 120
4. Mendis v. Seemasahitha Panadura Janatha Santhaka Pravahana Sevaya [1995] 2 Sri LR 284
5. De Silva v. Sri Lanka Telecom [1995] 2 Sri LR 38
6. Lanka Marine Services (Pvt) Ltd v. Sri Lanka Ports Authority [2010] BLR 187
7. Podi Nona v. Urban Council, Horana [1981] 2 Sri LR 141
8. Refaideen v. Siddique [2009] BLR 223
9. Obeysekera v. Albert [1978-79] 2 Sri LR 220
10. Trade Exchange (Ceylon) Ltd v. Asian Hotels Corporation Ltd [1981] 1 Sri LR 67

APPLICATION for Writ of Certiorari.

Chinthaka Mendis with Dhanushka Rajaratnam for the Petitioner.

lndumini Randeny, S.C., for the 1st, 3rd and 5th Respondents.

Kamal Dissanayaka with Sunil Withanage and Atheek-lmam for the 2nd Respondent.

Wasantha Fernando for the 7th Respondent.

cur. adv. vult.

June 16, 2020

SAMAYAWARDHENA, J.

By Deed of Transfer marked P1, the 1st and 2nd Respondents as joint vendors sold to the Petitioner the residential condominium unit marked

1A/F1/P3 depicted in Plan 1299A, together with the parking space marked 1A/F1/P3/A3 in the same Plan, located on the "ground floor" of Block A. The complaint of the Petitioner is that she was not given the said parking space and that parking space, together with some other allotments, has now been earmarked to be sold to the 7th Respondent by the 2nd Respondent. By this writ application, the Petitioner seeks to quash by certiorari the decision of the 1st and/or the 2nd and/or the 4th and/ or the 5th Respondent to alienate the said parking space on the ground floor of Block A to the 7th Respondent or any other person.

Even if the Petitioner's version of events is entirely correct, I have no doubt the Petitioner is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court to remedy the situation. The Petitioner's grievance stems from the violation of a contractual obligation based on the said Deed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents. Then the proper forum for the Petitioner to go before for redress is the District Court.

The Petitioner appears to have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court rather than the civil jurisdiction of the District Court seeking ordinary remedies such as damages and specific performance against the violation of the contract because the 1st Respondent is the National Housing Development Authority, the 4t