City Motor Transit Co. Ltd. V. Wijesinghe

1961 Present : Tambiah J.

CITY MOTOR TRANSIT CO., LTD., Petitioner, and C. WIJESINGHE
(Minister of Nationalised Services) and others,
Respondents

S. C. 9-Application for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus under
section 42 of the Courts Ordinance (Cap. 6)

Mandamus-Writ claimed against Minister of Crown-Liability of Minister to perform, a duty prescribed by statute-Letter to public officer requesting performance of duty-Direct reply withheld- Inference of refusal to perform duty-Motor Transport Act, No. 48 of 1957, ss. 2, 6, 38 (3), 29 (1), 53, 55, 65-Award of Compensation Tribunal-Duty of Minister to determine mode of payment. The rule that a mandamus cannot lie against a servant or agent of the Crown is not applicable to a case where a duty has been directly imposed by statute for the benefit of the subject upon a Crown servant or persona designata, and the duty is to be wholly discharged by him in his own official capacity, as distinct from his capacity as a mere agent for the Crown. In such a case a writ of mandamus would lie at the instance of & person who has a direct and substantial interest in securing the performance of the duty. By section 53 of the Motor Transport Act, No. 48 of 1957 -

" The mode of payment of compensation under this Act shall be determined by the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finanpe." Held, that section 53 imposes a duty on the Minister (of Nationalised Services), not as an agent of the Crown but as a person designated by office, to perform a public duty for the benefit of persons to whom compensation has been awarded, and therefore a writ of mandamus would lie if the Minister refused to perform the duty.

" It must be noted that there is no liability on the part of the Crown to pay the compensation. The liability is cast on an incorporated body, namely, the Ceylon Transport Board. Therefore, it cannot be said that in acting under s. 53 the Minister acts purely as an agent of the Crown. He has a statutory duty to perform for the benefit of those to whom compensation has already been granted."

Held further, that a public officer may legitimately be regarded as having refused to do his duty if he withholds a direct answer to a letter requesting him to perform the duty.

APPLICATION for a writ of mandamus to compel the Minister of Nationalised Services to determine the mode of payment of compensation to the petitioner some of whose omnibuses were compulsorily acquired and requisitioned by the Ceylon Transport Board under the Motor Transport Act, No. 48 of 1957.

H. V. Perera, Q.C., with E. R. S. R. Coomaraswamy, E. B. Vannitamby and H. Ismail, for the Petitioner.

V. Tennekoon, Senior Crown Counsel, with H. L. de Silva, Crown Counsel, for the 1st and 6th Respondents.

S. Sharvananda, with M. T. M. Sivardeen, for the 3rd Respondent,

Cur. adv. vult.

March 10, 1961. TAMBIAH, J.-

This is an application for a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Minister of Nationalised Services to determine the mode of payment of compensation tinder the Motor Transport Act, No. 48 of 1957, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, in terms of section 53 of the Act.

Some buses owned by the Petitioner hi 1957 were compulsorily acquired and requisitioned by the Ceylon Transport Board under the above Act, which also set up a Compensation Tribunal.

By an award 6" F the Compensation Tribunal, dated 2.4.59, the Petitioner was awarded the sum of Rs. 47,736'17 as compensation payable by the Ceylon Transport Board in respect of the acquisition of three buses.

On 25.11.59 the Petitioner by letter requested the Minister of Nationalised Services, the first Respondent, to make order determining the mode of payment, as required by section 53 of the Act. On 24.12.59 the Petitioner sent another letter to the Minister pointing out the long delay in the matter and warning him that unless a suitable reply was received he would be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document