You are on page 1of 6

Admin Law – cases

“According to Law” – It meaning? Sources of Admin law? Orders in the nature of
writs?

Article 140, 154 P 4(B), 126 (3), 3 and 4 (b)

Art 140 – Subject to the provision of the constitution, the CA shall have full power
and authority to inspect and examine the records of any court of first instance or
tribunal or other institutions, and grant and issue, according to law, orders in the
nature of writs of certiorari, prohibiton, procedendo, mandamus, and qua warranto
against the judge of any court of first instances or tribunal or other institution or nay
other person.

154 P (4) (b) – Every High of the province shall have jurisdiction to issue, according
to law- order in the nature of writs of certiorari, prohibiton, procedendo, mandamus,
and qua warranto against any person exercising, within the province, any power
under

(i) Any law; 0r

(ii) Any statutues made by the provincial council established for that province,

In respect of any matter set out in the provincial council list.

126(3) Where in the course of hearing in the CA into an application for orders in
orders in the nature of writs of certiorari, prohibiton, procedendo, mandamus, and
qua warranto , it appears to such court that there is prima facie evidence of
infringement or imminent infringement of such provisions of Chapter III or chapter
IV by a party to such application, such court shall fore with refer such matter for the
determination by the SC

ART 3 – IN the RSL sovereignty is in the people and is inalienable. Sovereignty
includes the powers of government, fundamental rights and franchise.

Art 4 (d) – the FRs which are by constitution declared and recognized shall be
respected, secured and advanced by all the organs of government, and shall not be
abridged, restricted or denied, save in the manner and to the extent hereinafter
provided;

Thasim v. Rodrigo 48 NLR 121

In his petition the petitioner complains that the Controller of Textiles has
acted without jurisdiction in making an order revoking all the licenses in his
hand. This order was made under Regulation 62 of the Defense (Control of
Textiles) Regulations, 1945, which is worded as follows :— "Where the
Controller has reasonable grounds to believe that any dealer is unfit to be

" . . in the writs mentioned in section 42of Courts ordinance. v. It is that characteristic that the Controller lacks in acting under Regulation 62. Lord Justice Atkin (as he then was) in R. Therefore it would be more reasonable to take each writ separately and consider what "other person or tribunal" would be amenable to each particular writ. in any ordinary sense of the words.allowed to continue as a dealer. may be moved for the issue of a prerogative writ. . as is necessary to apply the ejusdem generis(of the same kind or nature) rule to all the writs taken together. the Controller may cancel the textile license or textile licenses issued to him. 42 gives power to issue these mandates "according to law" it is the relevant rules of English common law that must be resorted to in order to ascertain in what circumstances and under what conditions the Court. act in excess of their legal authority they are subject to the controlling jurisdiction of the King's Bench Division exercised in these writs". Electricity Commissioners 1924 1 KB 171 @204. applying English law principles. the operation of the writs has extended to control the proceedings of bodies who do not claim to be. and would not be recognized as. have reasonable grounds of belief without having ever confronted the license holder with the information which is the source of his belief. The writs specified in the section are unknown to Roman-Dutch and Ceylon law and without calling in aid English law the mandate could not issue and the Legislature must be deemed to have enacted a meaningless provision." Quo Warranto can only in the rarest case of usurpation of a judicial office by some one be issued to a court. while mandamus very rarely issues to a court. Courts of Justice. and having the duty to act judicially. Nakkuda Ali v. Wherever any body of persons having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects. It is not difficult to think of circumstances in which the Controller might. It is impossible to find such a common factor. In truth when he cancels a license he is not determining a question: . Jayaratne 51 NLR 457 @461 Moreover there can be no alternative to the view that when s.

or that there must be any inquiry. S. no procedure is laid down by the Regulation for securing that the licence holder is to have notice of the Controller's intention to revoke the licence. The question of the admission of fresh evidence in certiorari proceedings must therefore decided in accordance with English Law. It is only to establish a jurisdictional defect that fresh evidence may be permitted. K. Matara (44 NLR 553 )held that the words "according to law" appearing in Section 42 of the Courts Ordinance meant according to English Law. nor also where there is delay for which there is no valid excuse. public or private. . if the mere requirement that the Controller must have reasonable grounds of belief is insufficient to oblige him to act judicially. Assistant Government Agent. The writ of certiorari being a discretionary remedy will not be granted where the party applying lacks uberrima fides (Most abundant good faith) and fails to disclose material facts. the power conferred upon the Controller by Regulation 62 stands by itself upon the bare words of the Regulation and. De Kretser J in the case of Wijesekera v. But. P. before the Controller acts. English law does not permit the reception of fresh evidence to show error on the face of the record for the writ of certiorari. In brief.he is taking executive action to withdraw a privilege because he believes and has reasonable grounds to believe that the holder is unfit to retain it. D. FERNANDO AND ANOTHER 1981 2 SLR 401 Although the Court of Appeal is vested with power to admit fresh evidence when hearing an appeal no similar power has been conferred on it when it exercises its writ jurisdiction (Articles 139(2) and 140 of the Constitution). THE STATE GRAPHITE CORPORATION (STATE MINING AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) v. The licence holder has no right to appeal to the Controller or from the Controller. The grant and issue of writs is governed by English law. We have it therefore on the highest authority that this Court exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by Article 140 of Constitution of 1978 to grant and issue these high prerogative writs in accordance with English Law. that apart. Nor will the writ be granted where Rule 46 of the Supreme Court Rules 1978 in regard to annexing of documents material to the case is not complied with. there is nothing else in the context or conditions of his jurisdiction that suggests that he must regulate his action by analogy to judicial rules.

vol. Tissa Dias Bandaranayake and Two Others (Dheeraratne. J. Hettiarachchi 77 NLR 131.As Pathirana J held in the case of Alphonso Appuhamy v. Jayaratne(8). Nakkuda Ali v. See Lord Diplock in CCSU v. The third is "procedural impropriety". 3. That jurisdiction is unfettered. The grounds of judicial review were originally broadly classified as three-fold. de Kretser(7) and K. Sirisena Cooray v. We must assume that the phrase was used in Article 140 in the same sense and that proposition admits of no controversy. 11 para 60). The recommendation or the decision of the Special Presidential Commission has the effect of potentially jeopardising the rights of persons. the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it.. . TISSA DIAS BANDARANAYAKE AND TWO OTHERS 1999-1-Sri LR-001-SC 2. Wednesbury Corporation(9). Minister for the Civil Service(10) at 951.) 15 mean that writs should be issued in the circumstances known to English Law. Before I part with this section of the judgment let me make a brief reference to the scope of judicial review. the Court will not grant him relief. In fact the first proviso to section 18A (2) specifically confers writ jurisdiction on the Supreme Court. To these grounds a fourth may be added "proportionality". The phrase "according to law" in Article 140 was also used in section 42 of the Courts Ordinance and was judicially interpreted to SC B. v. As such the Commissioner's report is amenable to judicial review. The first ground is "illegality". (Halsbury 4th bd. B. The writ jurisdiction of the Superior Courts is conferred by Article 140 of the Constitution. See Goonasinghe v. The second is "irrationality" namely Wednesbury unreasonableness (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. It cannot be restricted by the provisions of ordinary legislation contained in the ouster clauses enacted in sections 9 (2) and 18A of the SPCI Law or section 22 of the Interpretation Ordinance. SIRISENA COORAY v. if a party who moves for a prerogative writ fails to disclose material evidence and so is wanting in uberrima fides.

This writ of certiorari is not confined to judicial or quasi-judicial acts. Ex parte Hook.R. Reg. Orders in the nature of writs MARIE INDIRA FERNANDOPULLE AND ANOTHER v. Secretary of State for Home Department. v. J. L.v. (1976) 1 W. Sirisena Cooray v. JAYASENA v. Ex parte Davis. It is sufficient if the recommendation or decision of the authority has the effect of potentially jeopardising the rights of persons. SENANAYAKE.Over the years frontiers of Lord Atkin's formula in Electricity Commissioners case have been advanced by judicial decisions. does not necessarily preclude judicial review. It extends even to administrative acts that affect the rights of the subject. ex parte SC B. Amalgamated Engineering Union and others(20). 1052. Barnsley Council. v. and Breen v.) 17 Hosenall(19) . (1953) 1 W. Race Relations Board(18) R.L. Agricultural Land Tribunal. It is no longer the duty to act judicially or quasi-judicially which attracts review but the “duty to act fairly”. It is the nature. Tissa Dias Bandaranayake and Two Others (Dheeraratne. The Common Law right to possession of one's own property is one of these. See selvarajan v. functions and powers of the commission that would determine whether the commissioners have a duty to act fairly.L. 722. PUNCHIAPPUHARNY AND ANOTHER 1980-2-Sri LR-043-CA . E. MINISTER OF LANDS AND AGRICULTURE 79-2- NLR-115 When Common Law rights are involved the Court always has a right of review. Reg. The fact that the recommendations are not self-executory or the fact that a discretion of some other authority interposes between the recommendation and any actual consequences to the persons affected.R.

in Pernandopulle v.Per TAMBIAH. " Recent decisions.J.. have advanced the frontiers of natural justice. J. . C. The Minister of Lands and Agriculture). in England and in this country. The Writ of Certiorari is not confined to judicial or quasi-judicial acts. It extends even to administrative acts that affect the rights of subjects (per Samarakoon.