1948 Present : Dias J.
 
EDIRISINGHE, Petitioner and RAJENDRA,
Respondent.
 
S. C. 399-Application for a Writ of Certiorari and
Mandamus on the Assistant Government
Agent and Deputy Food Controller,
Matara.

Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus-Application by trader for writ on Food Controller- Is it a civil action ?-Food Control Ordinance-Chapter 132-Section 7A.
 
An application for a writ of certiorari and mandamus on the Food Controller is not a civil action within the meaning of section 7a of the Food Control Ordinance.

APPLICATION for a writ of certiorari and mandamus.
 
N. K. Choksy, K.C., with E. D. Cosme and S. Wijesinha, for the petitioner.
 
H. W. R. Weerasuriya, Croivn Counsel, with V. Tennekomi, Crown Counsel, for the respondent.
 
August 2, 1948. Dias J.-
 
The petitioner held an authority under the Food Control Ordinance, to deal wholesale in rice and other foodstuffs. He carried on this business at Kirinda in Matara. He also dealt in textiles. This latter business he carried on with the leave and licence of his brother in the adjacent premises.
 
On August 1, 1947, in the absence of the petitioner, the officers of the Food Control Department, as they were lawfully entitled to do, inspected the premises of the petitioner, and found everything in order. They then proceeded next door, and discovered a bag of rice. The petitioner swears in his affidavit that he knows nothing about this bag of rice, which he learnt had been deposited temporarily, not with any of his servants, but with Ratnatunga, his brother's servant, by a man named Charles, who intended to utilize it on the following day for feeding some Buddhist monks who were holding a retreat (vas). It is alleged that the Food Control officers were told these circumstances. They measured the rice and having sealed the bag directed Ratnatunga to preserve it in his custody. The petitioner says that the bag of rice is not his, that Ratnatunga is not his servant, and that he is not responsible for the acts or defaults of his brother's servant.
 
The petitioner states that he has heard that after the Food Control officers left, Charles came and wanted to remove the bag. Ratnatunga refused to allow him to do so, when Charles came with several dayakayas of the temple and forcibly removed the bag despite the protests of Ratnatunga, on the ground that the monks had to be given their meal. The submission for the petitioner is that no offence or contravention of any law or regulation had been committed by Charles leaving the bag of rice in his brother's boutique ; that he is not responsible for the bag being there ; and that, so far as he is concerned, the inspection of his premises where he sold rice and foodstuffs disclosed no irregularity.
 
On August 21,1947, the respondent, who is the Deputy Food Controller, Matara, wrote the following letter P1 to the petitioner :
 
" With reference to your letter of the 2nd instant handed to me at the Kachcheri, I have the honour to inform you that for allowing the bag of seized rice to be removed from your premises, I hereby revoke the authority granted to you under the Food Control Regulations, 1938, as a wholesale dealer, in terms of Regulation 18 (1) of Head E, Part III of the Food Control Regulations, 1938, read with Defence (Food Control) (Special Provisions) Regulations, 1943, with effect from September 20, 1947.
 
2 ................................................................................. (Irrelevant)............................................. "

The petitioner has not produced a copy of his letter dated August 2, 1947, to which reference is made in P1. His explanation is that he kept no copy of it. This may be true. On the other hand, the respondent in his affidavit R1 while referring to his letter P1, has not produced the petitioner's letter of August 2, 1947, and he does not refer to or explain in any way the connexion. if any, which ex