THE PRIVATE TEA FACTORY OWNERS ASSOCIATION NOW CALLED THE SRI LANKA TEA FACTORY OWNERS ASSOCIATION

THE PRIVATE TEA FACTORY OWNERS ASSOCIATION NOW CALLED THE SRI LANKA TEA FACTORY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
VS.
JAYANTHA EDIRISINGHE, TEA COMMISSIONER (ACTING) AND OTHERS

SUPREME COURT
K. SRIPAVAN,C.J.
R. MARASINGHE, J
SARATH DE ABREW .J
S.C. APPEAL NO. 47/2011
S.C. SPL L.A. NO. 13/2011
CA WRIT APPLICATION NO. 569/2003
JUNE 04, 2014
NOVEMER 19, 2014

Writ of certiorari - Reasonable price formula- Reasonable price - Should it be factory specific or formula of equal application to all factories ? arbitrary, urn lateral-illegal Tea Control Act- Audi alteram partem - Section 8 of Tea Control Act- Tea controller- Delay-fatal ? Intention of Parliament - Tea Commissioner - same person ?

This is an appeal to the Supreme Court from a Judgment of the Court of Appeal in a writ application contesting mainly the reasonable price formula under the provisions of the Tea Control Act. It is the position of the petitioner that the Respondent had no authority to lay down the reasonable price formula Such an imposition of price formula is arbitrary, unilateral and illegal Further the penal provisions in section 8(2) of the said Act are superfluous. It is also argued on behalf of the Petitioner that the reasonable price formula has been made without granting a hearing and thus violate the fundamental legal principle of audi alteram partem. It was further contended by the Respondents that a writ of certiorari docs not lie having regard to delay.

Held:

1. The explanation given by the Tea Commissioner demonstrates that he has taken into account various factors in order to arrive at a

"Reasonable Price Formula" The Tea Commissioner cannot have a common "Reasonable Price Formula" applicable to all tea factories based on non-factory related elevational average. It is well settled that the expression "having regard to" indicates that in exercising the power, regard must be had to the factor relevant for the exercise of that power.

2. Thus, the Reasonable Price envisaged in Section 8(2)(b) has to be necessarily factory specific and not a formula of equal application to all factories. Accordingly, the letters marked P12 and P13 sent by the Tea Commissioner based on the "Reasonable Price Formula" were ultra vires the powers of the Tea Commissioner and are set aside.

3. There has undoubtedly been great delay in challenging the validity or legality of the said circulars. However, the rule of laches or delay is not a rigid rule which can be cast in a straight-jacket formula, for there may be cases where despite delay and creation of third party rights, the Court may still in the exercise of its discretion interfere and grant relief to the Petitioner Thus, the question whether in a given case the delay involved is such that it disentitles a person to relief is a matter within the discretion of Court and has to be exercised judiciously and reasonably having regard to the surrounding circumstances. Declaring the said circular to be bad in law at this stage would result in the amounts recovered under them to be illegal and lead to serious consequences It would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Court to refuse to exercise its discretionary power in favour of the Petitioner who does not approach expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to try to unsettle, settled matters.

Per Sripavan CJ.

"Justice equity as good conscience do not permit me to quash the said circulars.

4. For the reasons stated above, I answer the questions of law on which Special leave to Appeal was granted as follows:

I. The Court of Appeal has misinterpreted the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Tea Control Act as amended.

II. The Court of Appeal has erred in holding that the Tea Controller Is empowered to impose a reasonable price applicab

Click Here to Read the rest of this document