Munasinghe V. Jayasinghe

1958 Present: T. S. Fernando, J.

A. MUNASINGHE, Applicant, and W. T. JAYASINGHE (Government Agent), Respondent

S. C. 34.9-Application for Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus on the
Government Agent, Polonnaruwa

    Certiorari-Public Performances Ordinance (Cap. 134)-Rule A5 made under s. 3- Grant or refusal of licence by local authority-Is it a judicial act?

By Rule A5 made in terms of section 3 of the Public Performances Ordinance-

" On receipt of an application for a licence, the local authority, after such. inquiry as he thinks fit, and after the payment of the fees mentioned in rule A3, may, if he sees 1W objection, grant a licence, subject to the conditions as he may consider necessary in the interests of the safety and the comfort of the public."

Held, that the effect of the expressions " if he sees no objection " and " after such inquiry as he thinks fit " is that the grant or refusal of a licence by the local authority is merely an executive (or ministerial) and not a judicial (or quasi-judicial) act. A writ of certiorai is, therefore, not available in respect of a refusal of the licence.

APPLICATION for Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus on the Government Agent, Polonnaruwa.

A. C. Nadaraja, with S. Ponniah, for the applicant.

M. Tiruchelvam, Acting Solicitor-General, with H. L. de Silva, Crown Counsel, for the respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

May 29,1958. T. S FERNANDO, J.-

The applicant who has been refused an extension of a licence for an erection for the purpose of public performances in the shape of exhibitions of pictures by means of cinematographs applies to this court for mandates in the nature of writs of certiorari and mandamus, certiorari to quash the order of refusal and mandamus to direct the local authority to hold an inquiry and to grant the extension of the licence. The local authority for the place in which the public performances are to be given is the Government Agent, Polonnaruwa, and the respondent was at all relevant times the holder of that office.

Rules made in terms of section 3 of the Public Performances Ordinance (Cap. 134) regulate the manner in which licences may be granted. The relevant rule is ruleA5 published in Gazette No.7,004 of 4th April, 1919- (see Vol. 2 of the Subsidiary Legislation, page 143)-and that part of this rule with which we are concerned in this application reads as follows :-

" On receipt of an application for a licence, the local authority,after such inquiry as he thinks fit, and after the payment of the fees mentioned in rule A3, may, if he sees no objection, grant a licence, subject to the conditions as he may consider necessary in the interests of the safety and the comfort of the public."

There is no rule dealing specifically with extensions of licences already granted, and it was not disputed at the argument that the rule governing the granting of licences reproduced above governed any extension as well.

The relevant facts are quite simple and are admitted. The applicant had been granted by the respondent a licence for an erection or exhibiting cinema films in respect of a period of SIX months expiring on 28th February 1957. This licence had been extended on two occasions, each ",c such extension covering a period of one month. The latter of the two extensions was due to expire on 30th April 1957, and the applicant applied on 26th April 1957, for a further extension to cover the period 1st May to 31st August 1957. This extension was at first refused, but subsequently was allowed in part to enable the applicant to exhibit films up to 30th June 1957. The applicant, not satisfied with an extension of the licence for a period of only two months, insisted on an

inquiry being held in respect of the application for the remaining two :months. No inquiry of the nature demanded by the applicant was held. The applicant contends that the respondent is by law under a duty to hold an inquiry while t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document