The Bank Of Chettinad V. Tea Export Controller

1935   Present  :  Koch J.

THE BANK OF CHETTINAD v. TEA EXPORT
CONTROLLER.

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS ON THE
TEA EXPORT CONTROLLER.

Tea Control-Administrator of estate registered as proprietor-Agreement by Bank to finance estate and to receive coupons-Application by heirs to be registered as proprietors-Decision by Rubber Controller-Writ of Mandamus-Tea (.Control of Export) Ordinance, No. 11 of 1933, s. 12 (2) and (4).

Where the Tea Controller has decided the question who was entitled to be registered as the proprietor of an estate under section 12 (2) of the Ordinance his decision cannot be reviewed by a writ of mandamus.

A person, who has advanced money for the payment of debts and the maintenance of an estate under an arrangement by which he was appointed agent to receive coupons, is not entitled to notice before a decision is given under the section.

Where a person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Controller fails to appeal to the Board of appeal under section 12 (4) of the Ordinance, the remedy by way of mandamus is not open to him.

THIS Was an application for a writ of mandamus on the Tea Export Controller to compel him to issue coupons in respect of certain tea estates to the petitioner, the Bank of Chettinad Ltd. The estates belonged to one Muttaiyapillai who died in 1928, leaving a widow and eight children of whom the eldest, Sadayapillai, obtained letters of adminis-

tration to the estate of his father. He was duly registered as the proprietor of the estate under the Tea (Control of Export) Ordinance.

Under an agreement with the Bank, the administrator undertook to consign to the Bank all the tea crops of the estates and to deliver all the tea coupons that may be issued in respect of the estates in consideration of certain moneys advanced by the Bank for the purpose of maintaining the estates. It was further agreed that the administrator should have the Bank appointed and registered as the person entitled to the tea coupons under the Ordinance until the liquidation of the moneys due.

The petitioner complained that after the tea coupons had been issued to him for some time, the Controller without notice to him had altered; the name of the registered proprietor by substituting the other co-heirs of the estate in place of the administrator, who was entered up to that time as sole proprietor.

J. E. M. Obeyesekera, Deputy S.-G. (with him Wickramanayake, Acting C.C.), for the respondent.-A party applying for a writ of mandamus must have a legal right to the performance of a legal duty on the part of the person on whom the writ is asked (Ex parte Napier, 1852, L. J. R. Q. B. 332 at 335). The petitioner to this application has no such legal right. Under section 12 (2) of the Tea (Control of Export) Ordinance the Controller is under a legal duty to decide whether a person or persons is or are entitled to be registered as proprietor or proprietors. Proprietor is defined in section 2 as the owner or lessee of an estate and includes for the time being the person in charge of that estate or any other duly accredited agent of such owner Therefore it is that class of persons who come within the definition of proprietor in the Ordinance who have a legal right to the performance of the legal duty imposed upon the Controller by section 12 (2). The petitioner claims to be assignee of S who was the registered proprietor of the right to receive the tea coupons. He does not therefore come within the definition of " proprietor " in the Ordinance.

The Controller has decided this matter within the meaning of section 12 (2), and his decision, no matter however erroneous, cannot be reviewed by process of mandamus. (Samynathan v. Whitehorn [1 35 N. L. R. 225], Board of Education v. Rice [2 (1911) A. C. 179.], Rex v. The Mayor of Stepney [3 (1902) 1 K. B. D. 317.], King v. Port of London, Authority [4 1191

Click Here to Read the rest of this document