In The Matter Of An Application By W.P.A. Wickeremesinghe To Be Restored To The Roll Of Proctors.

1945 Present: Keuneman, Jayetileke and Rose JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY W. P. A. WICKREMESINGHE
TO BE RESTORED TO THE ROLL OF PROCTORS

Proctor-Application for restoration to Roll-Notice of application-Period of repentance must be sufficiently long-Courts Ordinance, s. 16.

In Ceylon the restoration of a proctor to the Roll, after his name has been removed from the Roll, cannot be regarded as an admission and enrolment of the Proctor under section 16 of the Courts Ordinance and the second schedule to that Ordinance has no application to such restoration.

Before such restoration the Court must be satisfied that the effort of the petitioner to live a decent and respectable life has been continued over a period sufficient to make it say with confidence that he can be safely entrusted with the affairs of clients and admitted to an honourable profession, without that profession suffering degradation.

Further, reparation must be made by the petitioner in a spirit of contrition and repentance.

THIS was an application for the restoration of a Proctor to the Roll of Proctors.

M. F. S. Pulle, Crown Counsel, as amicus curia, raised a preliminary objection.-This application is made under section 16 of the Courts Ordinance and cannot be entertained unless rule 37 of Schedule II. of that Ordinance has been complied with. Six weeks' notice of the application has not been given in the Gazette and in an English newspaper. The words " so admitted and enrolled " in section 17 of the Court Ordinance support my argument. The word " admit " in section 16 is. wide enough to cover an application for re-admission. Reference may also be made to rule 48 of Schedule II. A fortiori, in the case of a Proctor who seeks to be reinstated, notice should be given to the public. The petitioner having been on the roll of Proctors before, there is no dispute as to his competent knowledge and ability.

It has been held that the Supreme Court has an inherent discretionary power to readmit a Proctor who has been struck off the Roll-In re Monerasinghe 1[(1917) 4 C. W. R. 370.]; In re a Proctor2[(1925) 39 N. L. R. 517.]. But the present objection was not raised in those cases. It is submitted that, even if the requirements of section 16 have no application in the present case, the Court will, while exercising its inherent power, insist on notice being given to the public before this application is heard. Such notice is a prudent safeguard and will enable members of the public to raise objections, if any, to the granting of the application.,

N. Nadarajah, K.C. (with him B. Wickremanayake and C.J V Ranatunga) for the petitioner.-Section 16 of the Courts Ordinance and the rules referred to therein would be applicable only to a student who has passed his examinations and is seeking admission for the first time. This is made clear by the provisions of rules 34, 37, 38, 39, &c. The present application is made under the disciplinary jurisdiction vested in the Court by section 17 of the Courts Ordinance. The Court which has the right to remove the name of a Proctor from the Roll for an offence which he has committed has also an inherent discretionary power to readmit him if he has subsequently expiated the offence and redeemed his character. The question is fully considered in Re Seneviratne 1 and Be Abiruddin Ahmed 2. Restoration is only a corollary of the disciplinary jurisdiction. Restoration of a solicitor is provided for in England by 22 and 23 Geo. V., c. 37. See Cordery on Solicitors (4th ed.) pp. 520, 556, 236, 238; Re Brandreth 3.

As regards the merits of the application, the petitioner has submitted numerous testimonials showing that his conduct has been irreproachable and that he has made full reparation in respect of the offence which he committed. More than five years have passed since he was remo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document