De Mel V. De Silva, M.W.H.

1949 Present . Gratiaen J.

DE MEL, Petitioner, and M. W. H. DE SILVA, Respondent

S. C. 564-Application for a Writ of Prohibition

Writ of Prohibition-Special tribunal entrusted with judicial powers and duties- Procedure not provided for-Procedure to be followed-Commissions of Inquiry Act of 1948.

When a tribunal other than a court of law is vested with legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of parties, but the procedure which it should adopt is not expressly prescribed by statute, the tribunal is master of its own procedure, provided, however, that the essential requirements of justice and fair play must be observed.

In the absence of special provisions as to how the tribunal is to proceed, the law will imply no more than that the substantial requirements of justice shall not be violated. It must give the party who may be affected by its decision an opportunity of being heard and of stating his case. It must give him notice when it will proceed with the matter, and it must act honestly and impartially, and not under the dictation of some other person or persons to whom the authority is not given by law. There must be no malversation of any kind. There would be no decision within the meaning of the statute if there were anything of that sort done contrary to the essence of justice."

THIS was an application for a Writ of Prohibition against the respondent who was appointed to investigate and report in regard to alleged prevalence of bribery and corruption among the members of the Colombo Municipal Council. The petitioner, who was called upon to meet twenty-seven separate allegations of corruption, alleged that the procedure adopted by the respondent was objectionable and tainted with bias.

H. V. Perera, K.C., with. S. Nadesan, D. S. Jayawickrama, C.S. Barr Kumarakulasinghe and K. C. Nadarajah, for the petitioner.

Cur. adv. vult.

December 5, 1949, GRATIAEN J.-

This matter was fully argued before me on November 25, 1949, by learned Counsel who appeared in support of the petitioner's application. Two questions arose for my decision: -

(1) Whether, in view of relevant legislation under which the respondent has been appointed to investigate and report on certain matters of public interest connected with the alleged prevalence of bribery and corruption among the members of the Colombo Municipal Council since December 2, 1943, it is competent for this Court in an appropriate case to issue a mandate in the nature of a writ of prohibition to prohibit him, from holding an inquiry into an allegation that a particular Councillor had acted corruptly in a manner specified by section 5 (1) of the Bribery Commission (Special Provisions) Act, No. 32 of 1949.

(2) Whether the facts set out in the petitioner's affidavit filed in these proceedings afford prima facie grounds for holding! that the respondent has divested himself of jurisdiction to inquire into allegations that the petitioner had on twenty-seven separate occasions corruptly given sums of money or other gifts to various Councillors for the purpose, of inducing them to exercise their respective votes in his favour at Mayoral elections.

The first of these questions-was one of sufficient difficulty and importance in my opinion to call for a decision of a fuller bench. That question has now been answered by a Divisional Court of three Judges in the affirmative [ (1949) 51 N. L. R. 105]. It now remains for me to consider whether, in the circumstances of the present case, I would be justified in issuing a rule nisi against the respondent on the grounds relied on by the petitioner. For this purpose I must, of course, assume for the time being that the relevant and admissible facts sworn to by the petitioner are true in substance and in fact.

It is not suggested that when the respondent originally entered upon his commission he lacked jurisdiction to hold an inquiry into allegations-of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document