Supreme Court Supreme Court

Judgements

🔍 Filter Judgements
✕ Reset
Showing 295 judgements — 2026
Date Case No Parties Judgment By Keywords Legislation Document
12 Jun 2026 SC/APPEAL/16/2011
Daya Somawathie Lokuge, No 147, Kotagedara, Madapatha. DEFENDANT - RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Vs. A.M. Hilda Enid Perera (Deceased), No 89/04, Poorwarama Road, Colombo 05. PLAINTIFF - APPELLANT – RESPONDENT 1A. Devamullage Gamini Kulapathy Perera, No. 89/04, Poorwarama Road, Colombo 05. 1B. Devamullage Maduri Mohara Perera, No. 07, Keells Houses, Kalalgoda Road, Thalawathugoda. 1C. Devamullage Ruwani Anushri Manawaduge, 1, Minnamurra Grove, Dural, NWS 2158, Australia. 1D. Hemanga Harshana Perera, Oakville, Ontario, Canada. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENTS Panadura Finance and Enterprises Ltd, No. 60, Park Street, Colombo 02. ADDED DEFENDANT-APPELLANT- RESPONDENT Daya Somawathie Lokuge, No 147, Kotagedara, Madapatha. DEFENDANT - RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Vs. A.M. Hilda Enid Perera (Deceased), No 89/04, Poorwarama Road, Colombo 05. PLAINTIFF - APPELLANT – RESPONDENT 1A. Devamullage Gamini Kulapathy Perera, No. 89/04, Poorwarama Road, Colombo 05. 1B. Devamullage Maduri Mohara Perera, No. 07, Keells Houses, Kalalgoda Road, Thalawathugoda. 1C. Devamullage Ruwani Anushri Manawaduge, 1, Minnamurra Grove, Dural, NWS 2158, Australia. 1D. Hemanga Harshana Perera, Oakville, Ontario, Canada. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENTS Panadura Finance and Enterprises Ltd, No. 60, Park Street, Colombo 02. ADDED DEFENDANT-APPELLANT- RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Janak De Silva 📄 Download
11 Jun 2026 SC/APPEAL/147/2018
1. Lanka Salt Limited, (Formerly of) Nirmana Mawatha, Nawala, Nugegoda. (Presently of) Lanka Salt Limited, Mahalewaya, Hambanthota. PETITIONER – APPEALLNT – PETITIONER – [APPELLANT] vs 1. Indrani Seneviratne, Provincial Commissioner of Revenue, Provincial Revenue Department, 30, Walkwella Road, Galle. 1A. K.G. Piyathissa, Provincial Commissioner of Revenue, Southern Province, Provincial Revenue Department, 30, Walkwella Road, Galle. 2. Director, Geological Survey and Mines Bureau, 4, Senanayake Building, Dehiwala. RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS – [RESPONDENTS] 1. Lanka Salt Limited, (Formerly of) Nirmana Mawatha, Nawala, Nugegoda. (Presently of) Lanka Salt Limited, Mahalewaya, Hambanthota. PETITIONER – APPEALLNT – PETITIONER – [APPELLANT] vs 1. Indrani Seneviratne, Provincial Commissioner of Revenue, Provincial Revenue Department, 30, Walkwella Road, Galle. 1A. K.G. Piyathissa, Provincial Commissioner of Revenue, Southern Province, Provincial Revenue Department, 30, Walkwella Road, Galle. 2. Director, Geological Survey and Mines Bureau, 4, Senanayake Building, Dehiwala. RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS – [RESPONDENTS]
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath K. B. Wijeratne 📄 Download
10 Jun 2026 SC/FR/171/2024
Lasantha Ganewatte No. 11, First Cross Road, Walpala Matara. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Dr. Asela Gunawardena Director General of Health Services Ministry of Health Suwasiripaya No.385, Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Dr. P.G. Mahipala Secretary Ministry of Health \"Suwasiripaya\" Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2A. Dr. Anil Jasinghe Secretary Ministry of Health \"Suwasiripaya\" Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. Sanath J. Ediriweera Chairman Public Service Commission No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 4. N.H.M. Chithranada 5. G.S.A. de Silva 6. A.D.N. de Zoysa 7. S.M. Mohamed 8. Ranjani Nadarajapillai 9. C. Pallegama 10. M.B.R. Pushpakumara 11. Prof. N. Selvakumaran 4th to 11th Respondents are all members of the Public Service Commission No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 12. Secretary Public Service Commission No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 13. T.M.L.C. Senarathna Chairman Health Service Committee of the Public Service Commission No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 14. Dr. Ananda Hapugoda, 15. Nimal Saranathissa 14th and 15th Respondents are both members of the Health Service Committee of the Public Service Commission No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 16. W.A.C. Wickramathilaka Secretary Health Service Committee of the Public Service Commission No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 17. Priyantha Atapattu Director - Tertiary Care Services Ministry of Health \"Suwasiripaya\" No. 385, Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 18. Lal Panapitiya Deputy Director General of Health Services (MS-1) Ministry of Health \"Suwasiripaya\" No. 385, Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 19. Dr. Sunil de Alwis 20. Tharaka Hetiarachchi 19th and 20th Respondents are both members of the Review Board and c/o Director General of Health Services Ministry of Health \"Suwasiripaya\" No. 385, Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 21. Don Lokugamage c/o Director General of Health Services Ministry of Health \"Suwasiripaya\" No. 385, Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 22. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS Lasantha Ganewatte No. 11, First Cross Road, Walpala Matara. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Dr. Asela Gunawardena Director General of Health Services Ministry of Health Suwasiripaya No.385, Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Dr. P.G. Mahipala Secretary Ministry of Health \"Suwasiripaya\" Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2A. Dr. Anil Jasinghe Secretary Ministry of Health \"Suwasiripaya\" Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. Sanath J. Ediriweera Chairman Public Service Commission No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 4. N.H.M. Chithranada 5. G.S.A. de Silva 6. A.D.N. de Zoysa 7. S.M. Mohamed 8. Ranjani Nadarajapillai 9. C. Pallegama 10. M.B.R. Pushpakumara 11. Prof. N. Selvakumaran 4th to 11th Respondents are all members of the Public Service Commission No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 12. Secretary Public Service Commission No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 13. T.M.L.C. Senarathna Chairman Health Service Committee of the Public Service Commission No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 14. Dr. Ananda Hapugoda, 15. Nimal Saranathissa 14th and 15th Respondents are both members of the Health Service Committee of the Public Service Commission No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 16. W.A.C. Wickramathilaka Secretary Health Service Committee of the Public Service Commission No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 17. Priyantha Atapattu Director - Tertiary Care Services Ministry of Health \"Suwasiripaya\" No. 385, Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 18. Lal Panapitiya Deputy Director General of Health Services (MS-1) Ministry of Health \"Suwasiripaya\" No. 385, Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 19. Dr. Sunil de Alwis 20. Tharaka Hetiarachchi 19th and 20th Respondents are both members of the Review Board and c/o Director General of Health Services Ministry of Health \"Suwasiripaya\" No. 385, Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 21. Don Lokugamage c/o Director General of Health Services Ministry of Health \"Suwasiripaya\" No. 385, Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 22. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna Page 1 of 15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application in terms of Article 126 read with Article 17 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Lasantha Ganewatte No. 11, First Cross Road, Walpala Matara. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Dr. Asela Gunawardena Director General of Health Services Ministry of Health Suwasiripaya No.385, Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Dr. P.G. Mahipala Secretary Ministry of Health \"Suwasiripaya\" Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2A. Dr. Anil Jasinghe Secretary Ministry of Health \"Suwasiripaya\" Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. Sanath J. Ediriweera Chairman Public Service Commission No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 4. N.H.M. Chithranada 5. G.S.A. de Silva 6. A.D.N. de Zoysa 7. S.M. Mohamed 8. Ranjani Nadarajapillai SC/FRA/171/2024 Page 2 of 15 9. C. Pallegama 10. M.B.R. Pushpakumara 11. Prof. N. Selvakumaran 4th to 11th Respondents are all members of the Public Service Commission No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 12. Secretary Public Service Commission No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 13. T.M.L.C. Senarathna Chairman Health Service Committee of the Public Service Commission No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 14. Dr. Ananda Hapugoda, 15. Nimal Saranathissa 14th and 15th Respondents are both members of the Health Service Committee of the Public Service Commission No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 16. W.A.C. Wickramathilaka Secretary Health Service Committee of the Public Service Commission No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 17. Priyantha Atapattu Director - Tertiary Care Services Ministry of Health \"Suwasiripaya\" No. 385, Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 18. Lal Panapitiya Deputy Director General of Health Services (MS-1) Ministry of Health \"Suwasiripaya\" No. 385, Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 19. Dr. Sunil de Alwis 20. Tharaka Hetiarachchi Page 3 of 15 19th and 20th Respondents are both members of the Review Board and c/o Director General of Health Services Ministry of Health \"Suwasiripaya\" No. 385, Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 21. Don Lokugamage c/o Director General of Health Services Ministry of Health \"Suwasiripaya\" No. 385, Ven. Baddegama Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 22. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS Lasantha Ganewatte v Dr Asela Gunawardena, Director General of Health Services and Others Case No. SC/FRA/171/2024 Before: Janak De Silva, J. Achala Wengappuli, J. Dr Sobhitha Rajakaruna, J. Counsel: Ali Sabry, PC with Naamik Naffah for the Petitioner. Yuresha De Silva, DSG for the Respondents. Written Submissions: Petitioner - 31 October 2025, 22 January 2026 Respondents - 26 January 2026, 03 February 2026 Argued on: 07 November 2025 Decided on: 10 June 2026 Page 4 of 15 Judgement Dr Sobhitha Rajakaruna J. The Petitioner claims that she is a Consultant Physician and holds the position of Consultant Resident Physician at the New District General Hospital, Kamburugamuwa. The Petitioner has been holding the said position since 25 August 2021. Summary of the Petitioner’s Case The Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 12(1) of the Constitution, challenging, inter alia, the setting aside and/or reversal of her Annual Transfer - 2024 from the New District General Hospital, Kamburugamuwa, to the District General Hospital (‘DGH’), Matara, for the post of Consultant Physician (VP/OPD), as reflected in the Annual Transfer for Specialist Doctors (Final List) approved by the 1st to 20th Respondents (‘P15(b)’/’P16(b)’). She also challenges the appointment of the 21st Respondent to the said post, despite the 21st Respondent having scored fewer marks than her. The Petitioner contends that the decision by the 1st to 20th Respondents to treat the New DGH Kamburugamuwa and the DGH Matara as one and the same institution, thereby rendering her transfer impermissible, is ex facie ultra vires, arbitrary, unfair, capricious, unreasonable, unjustifiable, irrational, inequitable, and violative of the principles of natural justice, proportionality, legitimate expectation, and equal protection of the law. In support of her position, the Petitioner relies on the following principal grounds: i. The Ministry of Health duly identified and advertised the available vacancies for the Annual Transfers of Specialist Medical Officers - 2024, listing three vacancies under DGH Matara and one vacancy under the New DGH Kamburugamuwa separately under the category of General Medicine, Southern Province. The New DGH Kamburugamuwa was listed as an independent institution, not under DGH Matara. ii. This separate identification remained unchanged in the three subsequent amendments to the vacancy list. Page 5 of 15 iii. In the Interim Lists published by the Ministry, the Petitioner was duly allocated the post of Consultant Physician (VP/OPD) at DGH Matara, consistent with her application and the published vacancies. There was therefore no necessity for her to file an appeal at that stage. iv. However, in the Final List (published on or about 29 May 2024 and later approved by the Health Services Committee), the Petitioner’s transfer was suddenly set aside on the new ground that the New DGH Kamburugamuwa and DGH Matara are to be treated as a single institution. She was accordingly listed as an applicant with “insufficient preferences.” The Petitioner asserts that this decision is patently arbitrary and ad hoc, inasmuch as: a) the two institutions are listed as separate entities on the Ministry’s website. b) the vacancy for the New DGH Kamburugamuwa was never listed under DGH Matara. c) the Petitioner’s preference list was prepared on the clear basis that the two institutions were distinct, as per the published vacancy lists, thereby creating a substantive legitimate expectation. d) past practice in annual transfers (including the Medical Officer Grade transfers in 2023, as evidenced by ‘P18’) demonstrates that the two hospitals have consistently been treated as separate institutions, with medical officers being transferred between them. e) the Petitioner herself has observed numerous such transfers between the two hospitals while serving at the New DGH Kamburugamuwa. f) the 21st Respondent, who scored lower marks (56.2) than the Petitioner (58.98), was allocated the post at DGH Matara. The Petitioner further submits that the impugned decisions were made without affording her any opportunity of being heard and without prior notice of the alleged policy change, thereby breaching the rules of natural justice and legitimate expectation. She maintains that even if a policy decision existed to treat the two institutions as one, it should have Page 6 of 15 been communicated at the stage of the advertisement for vacancy or in the interim lists, and not introduced unilaterally at the final stage. The Petitioner states that the decisions: (a) to treat the New DGH Kamburugamuwa and DGH Matara as one institution; (b) to classify her as an applicant with insufficient preferences; and (c) to allocate the DGH Matara post to the 21st Respondent, are illegal, unlawful, irrational, irregular, and tainted by extraneous considerations. She prays for appropriate relief from this Court. Alleged violation of Fundamental Rights The Petitioner alleges that the above decisions undermine her legitimate expectations, violate the rules of natural justice, and are prompted by extraneous and/or irrelevant considerations and ulterior motives. Accordingly, she asserts that her fundamental rights to equality and equal protection of the law guaranteed under Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g) of the Constitution have been infringed, or that there is an imminent and/or continuing infringement of the said rights. The Petitioner further pleaded for an interim relief stating that grave and irreparable loss, damage, harm, and severe prejudice will be caused to her unless this Court grants the interim relief prayed for. This Court granted leave to proceed with the application under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. An interim order was issued staying the impugned decisions reflected in ‘P15(a)’ and ‘P16(a)’ until the final determination of this Application. However, the interim order was confined to the Petitioner’s right to request a transfer from DGH Kamburugamuwa to DGH Matara, without affecting other transfers in ‘P15(a)’ or ‘P16(a)’ or the transfers scheduled for 2025. Submissions of the Petitioner The Petitioner submits that, according to documents marked ‘P6’ and ‘P7’ relating to the Annual Transfers of Specialist Medical Officers 2024, three vacancies under the category of Consultant General Physicians at DGH Matara, including the position held by Dr Mohotti, were identified. In addition, the Petitioner’s own position at the New DGH Matara was also listed as a potentially vacant post. Although the Ministry of Health later issued amended vacancy lists marked ‘P8(a)’ and ‘P8(b)’, no amendments were made to classify the vacancy at New DGH Matara/Kamburugamuwa under DGH Matara or to Page 7 of 15 otherwise address the issue. The Petitioner also submits that, in the final transfer list issued on or around 29 May 2024 – (‘P15(b)’), the Petitioner’s transfer appeared under the category “Potential applicants with not enough preferences,” accompanied by the remark that “DGH Matara and Kamburugamuwa considered as a single institution.” According to the Petitioner, this effectively amounted to a refusal of her transfer even before the Health Service Committee of the Public Service Commission (“PSC”) had made its decision. The Petitioner further contends that, in the final marks list for the Annual Transfers of Specialist Medical Officers 2024, she had obtained 58.9 marks, whereas the 21st Respondent, who was eventually appointed to the position sought by the Petitioner, had secured only 56.2 marks. The Petitioner therefore argues that this sudden decision, made without affording her an opportunity to be heard, violated her legitimate expectation and infringed her fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Accordingly, the principal issues formulated by the Petitioner for determination by this Court are: a. Whether DGH Matara and New DGH Matara/Kamburugamuwa were considered as one Health Institution at the time the transfer sought by the Petitioner was refused? b. If so, whether the Petitioner is entitled to be forthwith transferred/appointed to DGH Matara in terms of the said Annual Transfer List? c. Whether the Petitioner\'s fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12(1) are infringed by the 1st to 22nd Respondents or any one of them? The Petitioner argues that all three interim transfer lists recognised the two hospitals separately and accommodated the Petitioner’s requested preference without any qualification or adverse remark. It is therefore contended that, at the material time, the position that the two hospitals constituted a single institution was neither communicated to the Petitioner nor relied upon as a basis for rejecting her transfer application. Accordingly, the Petitioner maintains that DGH Matara and New DGH Matara/Kamburugamuwa were regarded as separate hospitals for the purposes of the Annual Transfers 2024. Page 8 of 15 The Petitioner contends that, in the Annual Transfers of General Medical Officers for the years 2012, 2019, 2021, 2022, and 2023, the two hospitals were consistently recognised as separate and distinct institutions, and transfers between the two institutions were permitted and effected. The Petitioner additionally submits that, although learned Counsel for the Respondents sought to distinguish the aforesaid transfers on the basis that they related to Grade Medical Officers rather than Specialist Medical Officers, such a distinction is irrational and unsupported by any formal policy or decision. The Petitioner argues that it is untenable to regard the two hospitals as separate institutions for Grade Medical Officers while simultaneously treating them as a single institution for Specialist Medical Officers. It is contended that no official decision or document has been produced to justify such differentiation, and that the purported distinction is merely an afterthought advanced to overcome the Ministry’s established past practice, thereby defeating the Petitioner’s legitimate expectation. The Petitioner further submits that the 13th Respondent, in the Affidavit dated 17 September 2025, particularly at paragraph 09(x), has conceded that the two hospitals had been treated as separate institutions due to an oversight. However, the Petitioner argues that such a position is misleading when viewed in light of the consistent practice followed by the Ministry of Health in previous years. The Position of the Health Service Committee The 13th Respondent, who was the then Chairman of the Health Service Committee of the PSC at the relevant time, has affirmed in her affidavit that the DGH Matara and the New DGH Kamburugamuwa function under one administrative authority. She states that the annual transfers were finalised by the Health Service Committee pursuant to the powers delegated to it by the Public Service Commission under Article 56(1) of the Constitution in respect of officers belonging to the Sri Lanka Medical Service. She has denied the averments in the Petition insofar as they are inconsistent with the aforesaid position. The 13th Respondent further states that, by letter dated 27 February 2024, the Health Service Committee approved the Notification relating to Annual Transfers – 2024, together with the composition of the Annual Transfer Committee and the Annual Transfer Review Committee. Thereafter, the relevant Notification calling for applications for Page 9 of 15 transfers was published. She avers that the Committees entrusted with the transfer process finalised the annual transfers after considering the applicable Service Minute, amendments thereto, including the amendment dated 22 March 2001, the relevant Rules, and the Appeals submitted by officers. She has further affirmed that, upon clarifications received to the effect that the DGH Matara and the New DGH Kamburugamuwa were under one administrative authority, the annual transfers were finalised and the final transfer list approved by the Health Service Committee. Referring to documents marked ‘R9’ and ‘R10’, she explains that although a distinction had been maintained between the two institutions in the year 2023 due to an oversight, when finalising the Annual Transfers for 2024 in respect of Grade Medical Officers, both institutions were treated as one hospital. The 13th Respondent also states that the Petitioner has not challenged the Notification calling for applications for transfers for the year 2024, the draft marks, or the final marks, but has only challenged the decision not to transfer the Petitioner from Kamburugamuwa to Matara on the basis that the two institutions are separate hospitals. She further states that the annual transfer process for the year 2025 has since been completed and that the Petitioner has been transferred to Kamburupitiya based on her preference (‘R11A’ and ‘R11B’). Position of the Incumbent Secretary to the Ministry of Health (2A Respondent) Dr Anil Jasinghe, the incumbent Secretary to the Ministry of Health, in his affidavit, has taken up the position that the DGH Matara and the New DGH Matara (Kamburugamuwa) function under one administrative authority and are not separate health institutions. The annual transfers for Specialist Medical Officers were finalised by the Health Services Committee as per the delegated authority. The Notification calling for applications for the Annual Transfers 2024 was published after obtaining approval from the Health Services Committee. The Petitioner submitted her application in response to the said Notification. Certified copies of the Notification, the Amendment to the Service Minute dated 22 March 2001, and the Petitioner’s application are marked as ‘X1’, ‘X2’, and ‘X3’, respectively. The transfer process was conducted by the duly appointed Annual Transfer Committee and Review Committee. Draft marks were published on 08 April 2024 (‘X4’) and finalised on 29 April 2024 (‘X6’). The draft Page 10 of 15 Transfer List was published on 29 May 2024 (‘X5’) and the final Transfer List on 13 June 2024 (‘X7’). The Petitioner did not challenge the marks allocated to her nor the process at the relevant stages. Concerning the status of the institutions, the Secretary relies on General Circular No. 01-46/2017 dated 24 August 2017 (marked ‘X8’), which sets out the criteria for identification of health institutions. Under this Circular, the DGH, Matara, has been assigned Health Institution Identification No. LMR0001073 under Health District Code MR. No separate identification number has been assigned to Kamburugamuwa. The Secretary explains that certain units of the DGH Matara (including the Maternal & Neonatal Unit, Psychiatric, Rheumatology, Rehabilitation Units and the OPD) are physically located at Kamburugamuwa (approximately 8 km away), while other units remain at Matara. The administration, budgetary allocation, and supply of medical items for the Kamburugamuwa facility are handled under the DGH Matara. Hence, the facility at Kamburugamuwa is not a separate health institution but forms part of the DGH Matara. Similar arrangements exist in other hospitals, such as Panadura/Kethumathi and the shifted units of DGH Kalutara. He further states that a new health institution is formally established only by a Ministry Circular and Gazette Notification, as was done for the National Renal Hospital at Polonnaruwa (marked ‘X9’), a procedure that was not followed for Kamburugamuwa. In view of the above, the Petitioner’s request for a transfer from Kamburugamuwa to Matara could not be granted as she was already serving within the same institution. She was transferred to Tangalle Hospital based on the marks obtained. Clarifications regarding the status of DGH Matara were submitted to the Health Services Committee. The Secretary asserts that the Petitioner had ample opportunity to lodge appeals, that the interim lists were only provisional and did not create any legitimate expectation, and that her reliance on Circular 02-46/2024 is misplaced, as institution identification is governed by Circular 01-46/2017. The entire Annual Transfer process for Specialist Medical Officers 2024 was carried out lawfully and in good faith, in accordance with the Service Minute, Public Service Commission Rules, and applicable Circulars, after due publication of all lists and consideration of appeals. The incumbent Secretary denies the allegations of arbitrariness, Page 11 of 15 mala fides, breach of legitimate expectation, and violation of natural justice. He specifically states that the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner under Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g) of the Constitution have not been infringed. Accordingly, the reliefs claimed have become futile and academic. The Secretary submits that he has acted in good faith and in full compliance with the applicable Rules, Service Minute, and Circulars, and therefore prays for dismissal of the Petitioner’s application. Summary of the Submissions made on behalf of the Respondents The Respondents submitted that the Circular governing Annual Transfers of Specialist Medical Officers for 2024 categorised vacancies into four classes, namely: (a) Definite Vacancies, (b) Potentially Vacant Posts, (c) New Vacant Posts, and (d) End Posts. A “Definite Vacancy” arose where a Specialist Medical Officer had completed four years of service at a particular station. The Respondents contended that the Petitioner was transferred to the DGH Kamburugamuwa, upon her return to Sri Lanka in January 2021, and, accordingly, that station could not have been treated as a “Definitely Vacant” station until January 2025, since the Petitioner had not completed four years of service there. It was further submitted that, when the Petitioner instituted the instant Application on 24 June 2024,challenging the refusal to transfer her to the DGH, Matara, the station at which she was serving did not fall within the category of “Definite Vacancies”. The Respondents further submitted that “Potentially Vacant Posts” referred to stations where Specialist Medical Officers had completed two years of service, but where a vacancy would arise only if the present holder was selected for transfer elsewhere. It was stated that the Petitioner submitted her application pursuant to the notification marked ‘P6’/’X1’ with full knowledge of the applicable criteria. The Respondent stated that the interim lists were merely provisional and intended for observations and appeals, and therefore no legitimate expectation could arise at that interim stage so as to suspend or alter the eventual outcome. The Respondents pointed out that the finalised marks were published on 29 April 2024 and the final transfer list on 13 June 2024 marked ‘X6’ and ‘X7’/’P16(a)’ and ‘P16(b)’ and however, the Petitioner had not challenged either the marks allocated to her or the annual transfer process itself. The Petitioner had challenged only the draft transfer list for 2024 marked ‘P15(b)’, in other words, only the refusal to transfer her from Kamburugamuwa to Matara. Page 12 of 15 The Respondents contended that the entire process, including appeals and review, was conducted under the Service Minute and the Rules of the Public Service Commission, and that the final list was issued after consideration by the Health Service Committee of the PSC. It was stated that, based on clarifications received from the Ministry, inter alia, that the DGH Matara and the New DGH Kamburugamuwa functioned under one administrative authority, the annual transfers were finalised after considering the appeal submitted by the Petitioner. In this regard, the Respondents relied on documents marked ‘R7’, ‘R7A’, ‘R8’, and ‘R8A’. The Respondents maintained that the Petitioner had ample opportunity to pursue an appeal before the Health Service Committee of the PSC. The Respondents further submitted that, according to the notice calling for applications (‘P6’/’X1’), only one position at the DGH Matara was identified as a “Definitely Vacant” position, namely the post held by Dr B.K. Mohotti, who had completed four years of service from 01 January 2020. Dr Mohotti had requested a transfer from Matara to Kamburugamuwa, while the Petitioner sought a transfer from Kamburugamuwa to Matara. However, neither officer was granted the requested transfer. Instead, Dr Mohotti was transferred to the Mahamodara Hospital, and the vacancy thereby created at Matara was filled by Dr Don Lokugamage (‘21st Respondent’) from Kalawana. The remaining two posts at the DGH Matara were identified only as “Potentially Vacant” positions, since the officers concerned had completed less than two years of service. Finally, the Respondents submitted that the present application had in any event become academic, as the Petitioner had subsequently completed her tenure at Kamburugamuwa and had thereafter been transferred pursuant to the Annual Transfer Process for 2025, as evidenced by documents marked ‘R11A’ and ‘R11B’. Conclusion As illustrated above, the primary basis advanced by the Respondents for refusing the Petitioner’s transfer is that the New DGH Kamburugamuwa and the DGH Matara are to be treated as a single health institution. General Circular No. 01-46/2017 dated 24 August 2017, which sets out the criteria for the identification of health institutions (marked ‘X8’), has not been challenged. Under this Circular, the DGH Matara has been assigned a Health Institution Identification No. LMR0001073. No separate identification number has been assigned to the facility at Page 13 of 15 Kamburugamuwa. A new health institution is formally established only by way of a Ministry Circular and Gazette Notification, a procedure that was followed, for instance, in the case of the National Renal Hospital at Polonnaruwa (‘X9’), but not in respect of Kamburugamuwa. Having carefully considered the material before this Court, including the affidavits filed on behalf of the Secretary to the Ministry of Health and the Chairman of the Health Services Committee of the PSC, I hold that the two hospitals function under one administrative authority and do not constitute separate health institutions for the purposes of annual transfers. The Petitioner has not challenged the Notification calling for applications for transfers for the year 2024, nor has she challenged the draft marking scheme, the draft marks, or the final marks assigned in respect of the transfer process. Her grievance is confined solely to the decision not to transfer her from Kamburugamuwa to DGH Matara on the basis that the two institutions are separate hospitals. In those circumstances, this Court is unable to accept that the impugned decision, viewed in its proper administrative context, gives rise to a violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights merely because the Respondents duly treated the two institutions as one hospital for the purpose of finalising the transfers. It was also contended on behalf of the Petitioner that, in the Annual Transfers of General Medical Officers for the years 2012, 2019, 2021, 2022, and 2023, the two hospitals had consistently been recognised as separate and distinct institutions, and that transfers between the two institutions had accordingly been permitted and effected. However, the Respondents have taken up the position that those transfers related to Grade Medical Officers and not to Specialist Medical Officers, whose transfers are governed by a separate administrative framework and distinct operational considerations. Upon consideration of the material placed before the Court, I am unable to conclude that the instances relied upon by the Petitioner are sufficient either to establish that the Respondents acted arbitrarily or unreasonably, or to compel this Court to categorise the two hospitals as separate institutions for the purposes of transfers of Specialist Medical Officers. The material before this Court further demonstrates that, although a distinction may inadvertently have been maintained between the two institutions in certain instances during the year 2023, the Respondents, when finalising the Annual Transfers for the year Page 14 of 15 2024 in respect of Specialist Medical Officers, had in fact treated the two facilities as one hospital. In my view, such circumstances indicate, at most, an administrative inconsistency or oversight in previous years. Such inconsistency, standing alone, is not sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the Respondents have thereby violated the fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution. The Petitioner has not challenged the marking scheme applied to her. Her grievance is confined to the classification of the two hospitals. The fact that an oversight may have occurred in previous years does not justify this Court altering the established administrative demarcation, as doing so would create unfair disparity across the entire transfer process and prejudice the rights of other Specialist Medical Officers. I must afford appropriate deliberation to the particular submissions made on behalf of the Respondents, namely that since the Petitioner had not completed four years of service at Kamburugamuwa, the station was properly classified only as a “Potentially Vacant” station. Consequently, any vacancy would arise only if the incumbent officer was selected for transfer elsewhere. On that basis, the Petitioner could not claim a legitimate expectation of obtaining a transfer with certainty. Consequently, the Petitioner’s contention that she had a legitimate expectation of being transferred to DGH Matara and that such an opportunity could not subsequently be withdrawn cannot be sustained. The interim transfer lists were provisional in nature and did not create any enforceable legitimate expectation due to the attendant circumstances of this Case. The final decision was taken after due consideration of appeals and clarifications regarding the administrative status of the institutions. It is important to draw attention to the submissions made on behalf of the Respondents referring to the case of W.P.S. Wijerathna v Sri Lanka Ports Authority and Others SC FR 256/17 SC Minutes 11th December 2020. His Lordship Justice Yasantha Kodagoda PC, in the said case has observed as follows: “It is also necessary to point out that in Wickremasinghe v Ceylon Petroleum Corporation and others1 Chief Justice Sarath Silva has pointed out that, although the objective of the right to equality is to ensure that all persons, similarly circumstanced are treated alike, it is seen 1 [2001] 2 Sri LR 409 Page 15 of 15 that the essence of this basic standard is to ensure ‘reasonableness’ being a positive connotation, as opposed to ‘arbitrariness’ being the related negative connotation. If legislation or the executive or administrative action in question is ‘reasonable’ and ‘not arbitrary’, it necessarily follows that all persons similarly circumstanced will be treated alike, being the end result of applying the guarantee of equality.” For the foregoing reasons, I take the view that the Petitioner has failed to establish that the impugned decisions were arbitrary, unreasonable, or prompted by extraneous considerations or ulterior motives. After examining all the material placed before the Court, I hold that the impugned decisions of the Respondents do not constitute an infringement of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Accordingly, the instant Application is dismissed. Judge of the Supreme Court Janak De Silva J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court Achala Wengappuli J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court 📄 Download
05 Jun 2026 SC/APPEAL/84/2015
Bope Arachchige Don Ananda Thilakasiri, No. 1571/86, Horana Road, Pannipitiya, Kottawa. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT - Vs - 1. Bope Arachchige Don Senadheera, No. 110/24, Jubilee Mawatha, Mirihana, Nugegoda. 2. Bope Arachchige Don Dilantha, No. 110/24, Jubilee Mawatha, Mirihana, Nugegoda. 3. Bope Arachchige Nimal Shantha, 325/6, Sirimangala Watta, Mampe North, Piliyandala. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS Bope Arachchige Don Ananda Thilakasiri, No. 1571/86, Horana Road, Pannipitiya, Kottawa. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT - Vs - 1. Bope Arachchige Don Senadheera, No. 110/24, Jubilee Mawatha, Mirihana, Nugegoda. 2. Bope Arachchige Don Dilantha, No. 110/24, Jubilee Mawatha, Mirihana, Nugegoda. 3. Bope Arachchige Nimal Shantha, 325/6, Sirimangala Watta, Mampe North, Piliyandala. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENTS – RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere 📄 Download
05 Jun 2026 SC/APPEAL/46/2022
1. Senanayake Ralalage Steven Senanayake, (Deceased) 1A. Karunarathna Chandrathilaka Appuhamilage Rupawathie, Samagi Pedessa, Mallehewa, Kaleliya. 1B. Nimesha Madumalee Senanayake, Samagi Pedesa, Mallehewa, Kaleliya.1. Senanayake Ralalage Steven Senanayake, (Deceased) 1A. Karunarathna Chandrathilaka Appuhamilage Rupawathie, Samagi Pedessa, Mallehewa, Kaleliya. 1B. Nimesha Madumalee Senanayake, Samagi Pedesa, Mallehewa, Kaleliya. 2. Karunarathna Chandrathilaka Appuhamilage Rupawathie, Samagi Pedessa, Mallehewa, Kaleliya. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT- APPELLANTS Vs. Kaludurage Kanthi Pushpalatha, No. 38, Samagi Pedesa, Mallehewa, Kaleliya. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT 3. Ranathunga Arachchige Samanthi Hemamalee Ranathunga, No. 24, Radawana, Meerigama. 4. Muthugala Pedige Sudesh Chaminda Mahilal, No. 138, Meerigama Road, Pasyala. ADDED DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENTS 1. Senanayake Ralalage Steven Senanayake, (Deceased) 1A. Karunarathna Chandrathilaka Appuhamilage Rupawathie, Samagi Pedessa, Mallehewa, Kaleliya. 1B. Nimesha Madumalee Senanayake, Samagi Pedesa, Mallehewa, Kaleliya.1. Senanayake Ralalage Steven Senanayake, (Deceased) 1A. Karunarathna Chandrathilaka Appuhamilage Rupawathie, Samagi Pedessa, Mallehewa, Kaleliya. 1B. Nimesha Madumalee Senanayake, Samagi Pedesa, Mallehewa, Kaleliya. 2. Karunarathna Chandrathilaka Appuhamilage Rupawathie, Samagi Pedessa, Mallehewa, Kaleliya. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT- APPELLANTS Vs. Kaludurage Kanthi Pushpalatha, No. 38, Samagi Pedesa, Mallehewa, Kaleliya. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT 3. Ranathunga Arachchige Samanthi Hemamalee Ranathunga, No. 24, Radawana, Meerigama. 4. Muthugala Pedige Sudesh Chaminda Mahilal, No. 138, Meerigama Road, Pasyala. ADDED DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon 📄 Download
04 Jun 2026 SC/APPEAL/93/2022
1. Arlet Charmen Fernando nee Thomes No.105, (Previously 107/97) Pranshawaththa, Mattakkuliya, Colombo 15. 2. Sonali Rushika De Silva No.105, (Previously 107/97) Pranshawaththa, Mattakkuliya, Colombo 15. DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Shirani Champika Ranbahu 2. Mallikage Dinusha Ranabahu 3. Mallikage Kusum Susrutha Ranabahu 4. Mallikage Komathi Tivanka Ranabahu All of No. 102/1,6/1, Rosmead Avenue, Colombo 07. (1st and 2nd Plaintiff’s appearing through the 3rd plaintiff as their attorney) PLAINTIFFS - APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS 1. Arlet Charmen Fernando nee Thomes No.105, (Previously 107/97) Pranshawaththa, Mattakkuliya, Colombo 15. 2. Sonali Rushika De Silva No.105, (Previously 107/97) Pranshawaththa, Mattakkuliya, Colombo 15. DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Shirani Champika Ranbahu 2. Mallikage Dinusha Ranabahu 3. Mallikage Kusum Susrutha Ranabahu 4. Mallikage Komathi Tivanka Ranabahu All of No. 102/1,6/1, Rosmead Avenue, Colombo 07. (1st and 2nd Plaintiff’s appearing through the 3rd plaintiff as their attorney) PLAINTIFFS - APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Janak De Silva Page 1 of 18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA S.C. Appeal No. 93/2022 SC/HCCA/LA/134/2020 WP/HCCA/COL/85/2017(F) DLM/180/14-DC COLOMBO In the matter of an application for leave to appeal under and in terms of section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 19 of 1990 as amended, read together with Article 127 of the Constitution. 1. Shirani Champika Ranbahu 2. Mallikage Dinusha Ranabahu 3. Mallikage Kusum Susrutha Ranabahu 4. Mallikage Komathi Tivanka Ranabahu All of No.102/1,6/1, Rosmead Avenue, Colombo 07. (1st and 2nd Plaintiff’s appearing through the 3rd plaintiff as their attorney) PLAINTIFFS Vs. 1. Arlet Charmen Fernando nee Thomas No.105, (Previously 107/97) Pranshawaththa, Mattakkuliya, Colombo 15. Page 2 of 18 2. Sonali Rushika De Silva No.105, (Previously 107/97) Pranshawaththa, Mattakkuliya, Colombo 15. DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN 1. Shirani Champika Ranbahu 2. Mallikage Dinusha Ranabahu 3. Mallikage Kusum Susrutha Ranabahu 4. Mallikage Komathi Tivanka Ranabahu All of No. 102/1,6/1, Rosmead Avenue, Colombo 07. (1st and 2nd Plaintiff’s appearing through the 3rd plaintiff as their attorney) PLAINTIFFS - APPELLANTS Vs. 1. Arlet Charmen Fernando nee Thomes No.105, (Previously 107/97) Pranshawaththa, Mattakkuliya, Colombo 15. Page 3 of 18 2. Sonali Rushika De Silva No.105, (Previously 107/97) Pranshawaththa, Mattakkuliya, Colombo 15. DEFENDANTS - RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Arlet Charmen Fernando nee Thomes No.105, (Previously 107/97) Pranshawaththa, Mattakkuliya, Colombo 15. 2. Sonali Rushika De Silva No.105, (Previously 107/97) Pranshawaththa, Mattakkuliya, Colombo 15. DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-PETITIONERS Page 4 of 18 Before: Counsel: Written Submissions: Argued on: Decided on: Hon. Janak De Silva, J. Hon. Menaka Wijesundera, J. Hon. Sampath K.B. Wijeratne, J. Eraj De Silva, PC for the Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners Dilan Perera for the Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondents 06.02.2023 and 26.11.2025 by the Defendant-Respondent-Petitioners 25.01.2023 and 16.10.2025 by the Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondents 25.09.2025 04.06.2026 Vs. 1. Shirani Champika Ranbahu 2. Mallikage Dinusha Ranabahu 3. Mallikage Kusum Susrutha Ranabahu 4. Mallikage Komathi Tivanka Ranabahu All of No. 102/1,6/1, Rosmead Avenue, Colombo 07. (1st and 2nd Plaintiff’s appearing through the 3rd plaintiff as their attorney) PLAINTIFFS - APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS Page 5 of 18 Janak De Silva, J. This is a rei vindicatio action. The learned trial judge dismissed the action by holding that the Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents (Plaintiffs) failed to prove their title. The claim-in-reconvention was dismissed on the basis that the Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners (Defendants) had failed to establish prescriptive title. Aggrieved, the Plaintiffs appealed to the Civil Appellate High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo (High Court) which allowed the appeal and entered judgment as prayed for in the plaint. The claim-in-reconvention was dismissed. Leave to appeal has been granted on the following question of law: “Did the Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents prove the title to the property as pleaded in the issues raised before the District Court?” Parties have admitted that the corpus is depicted as Lot 1 in plan No. 301/98 dated 21.08.1998 prepared by licensed surveyor P. Vethasalam containing 22 perches in extent. Lot 1 therein consists of Lots 6A, 6B and 6C depicted in plan No. 898/2003 dated 10.11.2003 prepared by licensed surveyor P. Vethasalam. Position of the Plaintiffs The Plaintiffs instituted this action seeking inter alia, a declaration of title to the corpus called “Meehaga Watta”, ejectment of the Defendants, invalidating the Deed of Gift bearing No. 7618 (පැ.8), cancellation of its registration at the Colombo Land Registry in Volume A 954 Folio No.55 and damages. The original owner of the corpus was one Ranjith Gomes, who conveyed Lot 6A to Edward Ranabahu by Deed of Transfer No. 407 dated 30.01.2004 (පැ.1) attested by N. Warusawitharana, Notary Public containing 7.61 perches in extent. Page 6 of 18 Thereafter, Edward Ranabahu brought Lot 6B along with the road reservation marked Lot 6C from Ranjith Gomes under the name of Kapugama Ranasighe Arachchige Premawathi (mother-in-law of Ranabahu) for his benefit by Deed of Transfer No. 408 (පැ.3) dated 10.02.2004 attested by said N. Warusawitharana containing 13.41 perches in extent. However, despite these conveyances by පැ.1 and පැ.3, the 1st Defendant remained in possession. The Plaintiffs later discovered that the 1st Defendant had executed a Deed of Declaration No. 2639 dated 27.08.1998 (පැ.5) attested by V. Thevasenathipathy, Notary Public, claiming prescriptive title to the corpus based on uninterrupted and adverse possession for more than 40 years. Edward Ranabahu subsequently purchased the entire land from the 1st Defendant by Deed of Transfer No. 4367 (පැ.6) attested by V. Thevasenathipathy, Notary Public, dated 29.09.2004 for valuable consideration of Rs. 1,000,000/= of which Rs. 500,000/= was paid upfront. On the same date, Edward Ranabahu mortgaged the said land to the 1st Defendant by Mortgage Bond No. 4368 (පැ.7) to secure the remaining Rs. 500,000/=. Subsequently in 2014, the Plaintiffs found that the 1st Defendant had executed a Deed of Gift bearing No. 7618 (පැ.8) dated 26.08.2011 attested by P.N.B. Perera, Notary Public, in favour of the 2nd Defendant (her daughter), which was registered at the Colombo Land Registry in Volume A 954 Folio No. 55. This finding led to the initiation of the present action. The Plaintiffs claim to be entitled to institute this action on the basis of the rights that devolved upon them as the widow and children of Edward Ranabahu, who died intestate in October 2013, thereby vesting his interests on them by operation of law. Position of the Defendants The Defendants contend that they had formalized their prescriptive rights through Deed of Declaration No. 2639 dated 27.08.1998 (පැ.5). The rights arising from this were later Page 7 of 18 transferred to the 2nd Defendant, who is the daughter of the 1st Defendant, through Deed of Gift bearing No. 7618 (පැ.8) dated 26.08.2011, which they claimed took priority as a registered instrument over the unregistered deeds Nos. 4367 and 4368. They also sought to assail the Plaintiff’s title by seeking to nullify Deed of Transfer No. 4367 (පැ.6) and Mortgage Bond No. 4368 (පැ.7) contending that the 1st Defendant signed those without any intention to be bound by them. Furthermore, they contend that the element of “Traditio” was not established since there was no delivery of the property to the Plaintiffs. Analysis Voet (6.1.2), defines the scope of a rei vindicatio action as follows: “ From the right of ownership springs the vindication of a thing, that is to say, an action in rem by which we sue for a thing which is ours but in the possession of another.” The burden is on the Plaintiffs to prove their title. This they have to do on a balance of probability [Kuruwitage Don Preethi Anura and others v. Makalandage William Silva and another (S.C. Appeal No. SC/LA/116/2014, S.C.M.05.06.2017; Bank of Ceylon v. A.C. Rajasingham (S.C. Appeal No.40/2014, S.C.M.04.07.2023)]. The Plaintiffs tendered documents marked පැ.1 to පැ.8 to prove their title. None of these documents were marked subject to proof. Consequently, none of these were objected to at the close of the case for the Plaintiffs. The Deed of Declaration No. 2639 (පැ.5) is dated 27.08.1998. The Deed of Transfer No. 4367 (පැ.6) is dated 29.09.2004 and it explicitly refers not only to the paper title of the 1st Defendant from Deed of Declaration No. 2639 (පැ.5), but also to prescriptive rights. The explicit reference to both the paper title and prescriptive rights in Deed of Transfer No. Page 8 of 18 4367 (පැ.6) unequivocally reflects the 1st Defendant’s intention to divest herself of the entirety of her rights in the corpus. This was further supported by the admission made by the 1st Defendant during the trial on 06.09.2016, where she expressly admitted the transfer of all her rights to Edward Ranabahu through Deed No. 4367 (පැ.6). ප්‍ර: මම තමාට ය ෝජනා කරනවා කුමන ය ෝ අයිති ක් තිබුනා නම් ඒ සි ලු අයිතිවාසිකම් තමා අංක පැ.6 ඔප්පුයවන් රනබාහුට පවරලා තිය නවා කි ලා? උ : ඔව්. මම යම්කට කැමැත්ත දුන්යන් මුදල් යදන්යන් මට ට්‍රාන්සර් කය ාත් පමණයි කි ලා කිව්වා The Plaintiffs’ position is supported by the principle laid down in Fernando v. Podi Sinno [6 C.L.R. 73], P. M. Dingirimahatmaya v. D. A. Ratnasekera [63 N.L.R. 405], H. Winnie Fernando v. Wijaya Prasanna Malalasekera and others [C. A. 769(A)/96(F) and C. A. 769(B)/96(F), C.A.M.29.10.2019] and Mayandi Suhumaran v. Mookan Sathiyaseelan [S.C. Appeal No. 28/2017, S.C.M. 04.10.2021]. The principle in simple terms is that a transferee can only claim the rights that were actually transferred to him; he cannot rely on the transferor’s prior possession of land that was not included in the conveyance to establish prescriptive title. Thus, it is clear that the 1st Defendant, by executing Deed of Transfer No. 4367 (පැ.6) on 29.09.2004, intended to transfer all rights she possessed over the corpus to Edward Ranabahu, including both the paper title and any prescriptive rights declared in Deed of Declaration No. 2639 (පැ.5). Moreover, there is no dispute as to the devolution of Edward Ranabahu\'s acquired rights upon his death to his widow and children, the present Plaintiffs, since the 1st Defendant has admitted Edward Ranabahu as the father of the Plaintiffs, and acknowledged Page 9 of 18 Ranabahu as the purchaser under the Deed of Transfer No. 4367 (පැ.6) while admitting herself as the signatory to said transaction. Hence, the only question that arises in this appeal is whether the Deed of Gift bearing No. 7618 (පැ.8) dated 26.08.2011 takes priority as a registered instrument over the unregistered deeds of 4367 (පැ.6) and 4368 (පැ.7) executed in 2004. Registration of Deeds Roman Law did not appear to have any evidence of a system of registration of deeds. Registration of deeds developed under Roman-Dutch Law. Wessels, J. in Houtpoort Syndicate v. Jacobs [(1904) T.S. 105] explained the development as follows: “In the Roman Law we find nothing about registration in the transfer of land. In Western Europe, however, a custom sprang up in many places which required the seller and the purchaser to appear before some official and state I the presence of witnesses that a sale of land had taken place. The transaction then was noted in a book kept specially for the purpose. This custom prevailed throughout the greater part of the Netherlands, and was in the time of Grotius regarded as an inveterate custom. In many parts of the Netherlands, in addition to the registration, the sale had to be publicly proclaimed on three Saturdays or on three church days (Recht., Obs. part III, Obs. 32). There can therefore be but little doubt, that the registration coram judice loci rei sitae, was for the purpose of publicity, partly that land should not be sold twice over to different purchasers, and partly so that persons who had any claims upon the land might assert these claims before the purchaser took possession.” The Dutch introduced two modes of ascertaining titles to land to Ceylon (as it was then). One was the thombo, where entries were made under the head of the presumptive Page 10 of 18 proprietor who was generally the Chief of a family. The other was by the authentication of two members of a Court of Justice. The British introduced three legislative instruments dealing with the registration of deeds. They are the Land Registration Ordinance No. 8 of 1863 (1863 Ordinance), Land Registration Ordinance No. 14 of 1891 (1891 Ordinance) and Registration of Documents Ordinance No. 23 of 1927 as amended (1927 Ordinance). 1863 Ordinance Section 38 of the 1863 Ordinance required every deed or other instrument dealing with any interest in land or immovable property, probate of every will, letters of administration, and every judgment, or order of court, affecting land, executed, granted, or pronounced after coming into operation of the 1863 Ordinance, to be registered in the books provided for the purpose. Section 39 provided that every deed, judgment or order which was required to be registered, unless registered as provided for by the 1863 Ordinance, was deemed void as against all persons claiming an adverse interest on valuable consideration by virtue of any subsequent deed, judgment, or order. In an anonymous case reported in 2 Grenier’s Reports 6, Sir Edward Creasy, C.J., summed up the object of this legislation as follows: “The clear object of the Legislature was to protect honest purchasers and creditors. A man when asked to advance money to another, looks naturally to ascertain what are the borrower’s means of payment. If he finds the borrower is the ostensible owner of any landed property, he naturally searches the register to see what, if any, encumbrances, there are on it. If the register shows no encumbrances, he advances his money on a deed which he carefully registers and thinks himself safe, as he ought to be, and as he will be, according to the construction which I put on the Page 11 of 18 Ordinance. But if some other man has got a stale old deed of encumbrances in his pocket, which the register does not reveal, and this stale old encumbrance is only suddenly registered when the debtor is about to be sold up, and if this stale deed were then to be allowed to override the deed registered before it, the whole system of Registration would be turned from a security into a mockery and a snare; and encouragement would be given to frauds which the law specially desired to prevent.” 1891 Ordinance Section 16 made it mandatory for the registration of the instruments specified therein. Section 17 stated that every deed, judgment, order, or other instrument as aforesaid, unless so registered, shall be deemed void as against all parties claiming an adverse interest thereto on valuable consideration, by virtue of any subsequent deed, judgment, or order, or other instrument, which shall have been duly registered as aforesaid. Provided, however, that fraud or collusion in obtaining such last-mentioned deed, judgment, order, or other instrument, or in securing such prior registration, shall defeat the priority of the person claiming thereunder; and that nothing herein contained shall be deemed to give any greater effect or different construction to any deed, judgment, order, or other instrument registered in pursuance hereof, save the priority hereby conferred on it. In Salgado v. Salgado [(1907) 1 A.C.R. 137] Wendt, J., held that the object of registration is to protect persons who in good faith and for valuable consideration enter into transactions in regard to land, from being prejudiced by already existing deed which purport to affect such land, but which it is impossible for them to discover by any search. Undoubtedly, compelling registration in this manner allows a person, who has once divested himself of his title, by the execution of a second deed clothe the subsequent grantee with title if the first grantee has neglected to register his deed in time. Page 12 of 18 Nevertheless, as Clarence, J. held in Silva v. Sarah Hamy [(1883) Wendt’s Reports 383 at 384 ]: “When an owner of land conveys it to A for value, and subsequently executes another conveyance of the same land in favour of B also for value, it is true at the date of the second conveyance the owner has nothing left in him to convey, but by the operation of the Ordinance B’s conveyance overrides A’s, if registered before it. Unless the Ordinance has this effect it has none at all, and this seems the actual construction of the enactment.” It is a fundamental principle of our law that the non-registration of a deed does not, by itself, invalidate the deed or nullify the transfer of ownership it seeks to effect. Registration is merely a statutory requirement that determines priority among competing instruments, not the intrinsic validity of the conveyance. Thus, while non-registration may affect priority when confronted with a subsequent registered instrument for valuable consideration, it does not diminish the legal rights or title vested in the grantee under a properly executed deed. The earlier deed is not affected in any way, save that it has to take second place. [Massilamany v. Santiago (14 N.L.R. 292), Mutturamen Vs. Massilamany (16 N.L.R. 289), James v. Carolis (17 N.L.R. 76), Mohomad Ali v. Weerasuriya (17 N.L.R. 417), A. M. Lairis Appu v. E. N. Tennakoon Kumarihamy (61 N.L.R. 97)]. 1927 Ordinance Section 7 of the Ordinance as produced in the Legislative Enactments 1956 Revised Edition reads as follows: “7. (1) An instrument executed or made on or after the 1st day of January, 1864, whether before or after the commencement of this Ordinance shall, unless it is duly registered under this Chapter, or, if the land has come within the operation of the Page 13 of 18 Land Registration Ordinance, 1877,+[+ Omitted from this edition,] in the books mentioned in section 26 of that Ordinance, be void as against all parties claiming an adverse interest thereto on valuable consideration by virtue of any subsequent instrument which is duly registered under this Chapter, or, if the land has come within the operation ‘of the Land Registration Ordinance, 1877+,[+ Omitted from this edition,] in the books mentioned in section 26 of that Ordinance.\" (emphasis added) Three main prerequisites need to be satisfied for the doctrine of priority by registration to operate: (1) Both deeds shall proceed from the same source. (2) The interests sought to be conferred shall be adverse, creating a clash of interests. (3) The conveyance shall be for valuable consideration. There is no doubt that the first two requirements are satisfied in the present case. The first requirement is unequivocally satisfied, since both the prior Deed of Transfer No. 4367 (පැ.6) and the subsequent Deed of Gift No. 7618 (පැ.8) were executed by the same grantor, the 1st Defendant. She is the common source from which all competing claims to the corpus originate. The second requirement is also clearly met since these two deeds create a direct and irreconcilable clash of interests, as they purport to transfer absolute ownership of the corpus to two different parties: Edward Ranabahu and the 2nd Defendant. These claims are mutually exclusive and legally incompatible. The third requirement is the need for there to be valuable consideration. The term “valuable consideration” was not part of Roman-Dutch law and is derived from English contractual law principles. Page 14 of 18 In Fernando v. Fonseka [(1889) 1 C.L.R. 82] it was held that under Section 39 of the 1863 Ordinance, a deed of gift, not being a deed for valuable consideration, does not, by reasons of prior registration, obtain priority over a deed previously executed. Dias, J. held that valuable consideration is a well-known term with a well-defined meaning - it is such as money, marriage, or the like which the law esteems as an equivalent given for a grant. Three years later in Mohamadu Hamidu v. Rahimuttu Natchia [(1892) 2 C.L.R. 32] it was held that the operation of Section 39 of the 1863 Ordinance, in favour of deeds registered before deeds earlier in date, is confined to deeds made for valuable consideration. Therefore, it was held that a deed of gift does not, by reason of prior registration, prevail over another deed of gift prior in date. In Salmon v. Obilias [(1918) 6 C.W.R. 1], Bertram, C.J., held that the words “valuable consideration” in Section 17 of Land Registration Ordinance 1891 must be interpreted according to English Law which does not recognize past consideration as valuable consideration. Hence the registration of a deed of conveyance for which the consideration was a past consideration does not give it priority over an earlier unregistered deed. Whether there is valuable consideration or not will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. A dowry deed or settlement in consideration of marriage is for valuable consideration, if the marriage takes place subsequently [Jayasekere v. Wanigaratne (12 N.L.R. 364), Valupillay v. Kathiravaloe (1892) 5 Thamb. 94]. It is an established rule of interpretation that the legislature is presumed to know the law, judicial decisions and general principles of law. Bindra [Bindra’s Interpretation of Statutes, 10th ed., page 235] states as follows: “The legislature must be presumed to know the course of the legislation, as well as the course of judicial decisions in the country, a fortiori of the superior courts of the country. It is a well-settled rule of construction that when a statute is repealed and Page 15 of 18 re-enacted, and words in the repealed statute are reproduced in the new statute, they should be interpreted in the sense which had been judicially put on them in the repealed Act, because the legislature is presumed to be acquainted with the construction which courts have put upon the words, when they repeat the same words, they must be taken to have accepted the interpretation put on them by the court as correctly reflecting the legislative mind.” In M. J. M. Nilamdeen v. Nanayakkara [76 N.L.R. 169] it was held that it is a well-known rule of construction that where the legislature uses in an Act a legal term which has received judicial interpretation, it must be assumed that the term is used in the sense in which it has been judicially interpreted. There is also another rule of construction that where the words of an earlier Act are made part of a new Act, the legal interpretation which has been put upon the former by courts of law is applicable to those same words in the new Act. Therefore, although the decisions in Fernando [supra], Mohamadu Hamidu [supra] and Salmon [supra] examined the meaning of “valuable consideration” under different Ordinances, the meaning given therein to “valuable consideration” is applicable in examining the meaning of the same term in Section 7 of the 1927 Ordinance. The subsequent instrument, Deed of Gift No. 7618 (පැ.8), is a voluntary transfer without valuable consideration. In contrast, the prior Deed of Transfer No. 4367 (පැ.6) was executed for valuable consideration of Rs. 1,000,000/=. The 1st Defendant admitted at the trial dated 06.09.2016, that she received Rs. 500,000/= on the execution of both පැ.6 and පැ.7, and it is admitted that the Plaintiffs are ready to pay the remaining Rs. 500,000/=. For all the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation in holding that the registered Deed of Gift No. 7618 (පැ.8), cannot claim priority over Deed of Transfer No. 4367 (පැ.6) executed for valuable consideration. Page 16 of 18 The Defendants sought to contend that as full consideration for Deed of Transfer No. 4367 (පැ.6) was not paid, no title passed to the Plaintiffs. However, this is misconceived in law. In Jayawardene v. Amarasekera [15 N.L.R. 280] it was held that on the execution of a notarial conveyance, the sale is complete, and the mere fact that the whole of the consideration has not been paid cannot, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, afford ground for the rescission of the sale and the cancellation of the sale. In Mohamadu v. Hussim [16 N.L.R. 368] it was held that where a person obtains a conveyance of property without fraud, but afterwards fraudulently refuses to pay the consideration stipulated for, the grantor is not entitled to claim a cancellation of the conveyance, but his remedy is an action for the recovery of the consideration. In T. M. Sabaratnam v. Kandiah [52 C.L.W. 80] it was held that the non-payment of consideration, if true, would entitle a claim for recovery, not nullification of the sale. More recently in Weerasinghe v. Heiling and Another [(2020) 3 Sri.L.R. 136], the Supreme Court held that a deed of transfer executed without fraud by a Notary Public in accordance with the provisions of the Notaries Ordinance does not become invalid if the consideration stated in the deed was not paid to the transferor. The transferor in such a situation may file a separate action for recovery of the consideration. Accordingly, even though the full consideration for Deed of Transfer No. 4367 (පැ.6) has not been paid, that does not negate the title that was passed thereby. The only remedy for the seller is to sue for the balance consideration. The final point that needs to be examined is the contention of the Defendants that Traditio was not established in respect of Deed of Transfer No. 4367 (පැ.6) and therefore no title passed to the Plaintiffs. I am not convinced that this is a matter that can be urged in appeal given that no issue was raised thereon. Nevertheless, I shall examine it. Page 17 of 18 Traditio (Delivery) This was one of the five (5) modes of acquisition by natural law recognized in Roman Law. It meant the transfer of possession with the consequences that the ownership of the thing transferred vests in the transferee. The essential conditions of this mode of acquisition are: (i) The thing must be capable of delivery and of acquisition by delivery. (ii) The transferor must be competent to give and the transferee to acquire ownership by this method. (iii) The transferor must intend to convey ownership (ex justa causa). (iv) The transferor cannot give what he has not got. (v) There must be a physical transfer of possession or something which in law is an equivalent. Overtime the delivery of a written deed of conveyance took the place of delivery of the land (traditio per cartam). In W. D. Baiya v. K. D. A. Karunasekera [56 N.L.R. 265 at 268], Gratiaen, J., held that: “Under our law, the affixing of the vendor\'s signature to the conveyance does not automatically operate to pass title. Delivery of the deed is the minimum pre-requisite (as constituting constructive delivery of the land itself) to the creation of a title which is sufficient even to enable the purchaser to maintain an action to recover the property from \" a third party in possession without, or under a weaker, title \"-Appuhamy v. Appuhamy [1 (1880) 3 S. C. C. 61 F. B.]. Berwick J. explained at p. 67 that in Ceylon \"the notarial execution and the registration of the deed-\'formerly in Court and now with the Registrar of Lands-with delivery of the deed takes the place of the old Dutch symbolical delivery before the judge and registration of the proceedings among the acts of court; with the same result as in Page 18 of 18 Holland, the principles being the same- viz., contract of sale plus symbolic delivery, equal to dominium, with the consequent right to sue in ejectment.” In this action, it is not disputed that the 1st Defendant executed Deed of Transfer No. 4367 (පැ.6) and handed it over to Edward Ranabahu. At that time, she was the owner of the corpus. The circumstances also establish that she intended to transfer all her rights over the corpus to Edward Ranabahu. Traditio is thus completed. Accordingly, I am of the view that the Plaintiffs have on a balance of probability established their title to the corpus. I answer the question of law in the affirmative. Appeal dismissed. On the question of costs, I am not at all impressed by the conduct of the 1st Defendant. She tried to undermine the title of the Plaintiffs and their predecessor in title on two occasions which lead to this prolong litigation. Accordingly, I award the Plaintiffs costs fixed at Rs. 2,00,000/=. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT Menaka Wijesundara, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT M. Sampath K.B. Wijeratne, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT 📄 Download
02 Jun 2026 SC/APPEAL/175/2017
Paul Manuwelage, 23, L 1/6, National Housing Complex, E.D. Dabare Mawatha, Narahenpita Colombo 05. Applicant – Appellant- Appellant Vs. Colombo Young Mens Christian Association, 39, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. Respondent-Respondent- Respondent Paul Manuwelage, 23, L 1/6, National Housing Complex, E.D. Dabare Mawatha, Narahenpita Colombo 05. Applicant – Appellant- Appellant Vs. Colombo Young Mens Christian Association, 39, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. Respondent-Respondent- Respondent
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
01 Jun 2026 SC/APPEAL/85/2025
1. Gimhan Sri Sameera Katulanda, No. 10/4, Station Road, Navinna, Maharagama. 2. Nishan Tharaka Ranpatige, No. 66, Kandewatte Road, Pelawatta. 3. Alagiya Hewage Mahendra Pradeep, No. 3/55, Steel Road, Wedagewatta, Dangedara, Galle. Intervenient Petitioners 1. Paduwawala Kankanamlage Chinthaka Mohan Perera, 2. Panduwawala Kankanamlage Imeshi Ashara, Both of No. 199, Mandamulla, Minuwangoda. Intervenient Petitioners Vs. Marie Bernadette Kumari Herath, No. 20, Sky Gardens Apartments, Buthgamuwa Road, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff-Respondent 1. Blue Mountain Properties (Private) Limited, No. 86, Kirulapone Avenue, Colombo 5. 2. Blue Mountain Apartments Colombo Four (Private) Limited, No. 86, Kirulapone Avenue, Colombo 5. 3. Sampath Bank PLC., No. 110, Sir James Peiris Mawatha, Colombo 2. And Others Defendant-Respondents 1. Gimhan Sri Sameera Katulanda, No. 10/4, Station Road, Navinna, Maharagama. 2. Nishan Tharaka Ranpatige, No. 66, Kandewatte Road, Pelawatta. 3. Alagiya Hewage Mahendra Pradeep, No. 3/55, Steel Road, Wedagewatta, Dangedara, Galle. Intervenient Petitioners 1. Paduwawala Kankanamlage Chinthaka Mohan Perera, 2. Panduwawala Kankanamlage Imeshi Ashara, Both of No. 199, Mandamulla, Minuwangoda. Intervenient Petitioners Vs. Marie Bernadette Kumari Herath, No. 20, Sky Gardens Apartments, Buthgamuwa Road, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff-Respondent 1. Blue Mountain Properties (Private) Limited, No. 86, Kirulapone Avenue, Colombo 5. 2. Blue Mountain Apartments Colombo Four (Private) Limited, No. 86, Kirulapone Avenue, Colombo 5. 3. Sampath Bank PLC., No. 110, Sir James Peiris Mawatha, Colombo 2. And Others Defendant-Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
01 Jun 2026 SC/APPEAL/161/2023
Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Perpetual Treasuries Limited, 3rd Floor, Prince Alfred Tower, No. 93, Alfred House Gardens, Colombo 03. 2. Sandresh Ravindra Karunanayake, No. 1291/6, Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla. 3. Lakshman Arjuna Mahendran, No. 52/1, Flower Road, Colombo 03. 4. Arjun Joseph Aloysius, No. 52/1, Flower Road, Colombo 3. 5. P. Appuhamilage Don Kasun Oshadee Palisena, No. 21, Arthuesa Lane, Wellawatte, Colombo 06. 6. Geoffrey Joseph Aloysius, No. 07, Queens Road, Colombo 03. 7. Chitta Ranjan Hulugalla, No. 45/D/1, Western Tower, Galle Face Residencies, Colombo 02. 8. Muthurajah Surendran, No. 88/3, Ellie House Road, Colombo 15. 9. Ajahn Gardiye Punchihewa, No. 23/2A, Independence Avenue, Colombo 07. 10. Badugoda Hewa Indika Saman Kumara, No. 1/1, Enderamulla Road, Ambalangoda. Accused-Respondent-Respondents. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Perpetual Treasuries Limited, 3rd Floor, Prince Alfred Tower, No. 93, Alfred House Gardens, Colombo 03. 2. Sandresh Ravindra Karunanayake, No. 1291/6, Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla. 3. Lakshman Arjuna Mahendran, No. 52/1, Flower Road, Colombo 03. 4. Arjun Joseph Aloysius, No. 52/1, Flower Road, Colombo 3. 5. P. Appuhamilage Don Kasun Oshadee Palisena, No. 21, Arthuesa Lane, Wellawatte, Colombo 06. 6. Geoffrey Joseph Aloysius, No. 07, Queens Road, Colombo 03. 7. Chitta Ranjan Hulugalla, No. 45/D/1, Western Tower, Galle Face Residencies, Colombo 02. 8. Muthurajah Surendran, No. 88/3, Ellie House Road, Colombo 15. 9. Ajahn Gardiye Punchihewa, No. 23/2A, Independence Avenue, Colombo 07. 10. Badugoda Hewa Indika Saman Kumara, No. 1/1, Enderamulla Road, Ambalangoda. Accused-Respondent-Respondents.
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
01 Jun 2026 SC/FR/272/2024
1. Ekanayakage Chamara Sudharshana Ekanayaka 2. Rajaguru Mudiyanselage Sinesha Rajaguru Both at No. 5/4, Southern Circular Road, Kurunegala presently at Plot 999A, Danmole Street, Off Idejo, Adeola Odeku, Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeria. Appearing through their Power of Attorney holder Rajaguru Mudiyanselage Dharmatissa Herath No, 5/4, Southern Circular Road, Kurunegala. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Urban Development Authority 6th, 7th and 9th Floors Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla 2. Mr. Mahinda Withanaarachchi Director General Urban Development Authority, 6th, 7th and 9th Floors, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla 3. Mrs. Priyanthi Nawarathna Director (North Western Province) Urban Development Authority, Office of North Western Province, No 310 D, Negombo Road, Kurunegala. 4. Mr. R M J B Rathnayaka Deputy Director (Planning) Urban Development Authority, Office of North Western Province, No 310 D, Negombo Road, Kurunegala. 5. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS 1. Ekanayakage Chamara Sudharshana Ekanayaka 2. Rajaguru Mudiyanselage Sinesha Rajaguru Both at No. 5/4, Southern Circular Road, Kurunegala presently at Plot 999A, Danmole Street, Off Idejo, Adeola Odeku, Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeria. Appearing through their Power of Attorney holder Rajaguru Mudiyanselage Dharmatissa Herath No, 5/4, Southern Circular Road, Kurunegala. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Urban Development Authority 6th, 7th and 9th Floors Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla 2. Mr. Mahinda Withanaarachchi Director General Urban Development Authority, 6th, 7th and 9th Floors, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla 3. Mrs. Priyanthi Nawarathna Director (North Western Province) Urban Development Authority, Office of North Western Province, No 310 D, Negombo Road, Kurunegala. 4. Mr. R M J B Rathnayaka Deputy Director (Planning) Urban Development Authority, Office of North Western Province, No 310 D, Negombo Road, Kurunegala. 5. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna 📄 Download
27 May 2026 SC/FR/32/2022, SC/FR/33/2022 & SC/FR/34/2022
Ms. Tharmaraja Tharmaja, No. 34/39, St. Sebastian’s Hill, Colombo 12. PETITIONER On behalf of; Mohammed Naleer Mohammed Fazil, Agara, Narangoda, Pannala. Currently remanded at: The Colombo Remand Prison, Colombo 09. REMANDEE Vs. 1. Sub-Inspector Deepal Padma Kumara, 2. Director, The 1st and 2nd Respondents of; the Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 3. Officer-in-Charge, 4. Chief Inspector T.R.K. Pathirana, Officer-in-Charge, Investigation Unit 02 5. Director, The 3rd to 5th Respondents of; The Counter Terrorism Investigation Division, Colombo 01. 6. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS 8. Mr. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Former President, Malalasekera Mawatha, Colombo 07. And of; No. 26, Pangiriwatta Mawatha, Mirihana, Nugegoda. ADDED-RESPONDENT Ms. Tharmaraja Tharmaja, No. 34/39, St. Sebastian’s Hill, Colombo 12. PETITIONER On behalf of; Mohammed Naleer Mohammed Fazil, Agara, Narangoda, Pannala. Currently remanded at: The Colombo Remand Prison, Colombo 09. REMANDEE Vs. 1. Sub-Inspector Deepal Padma Kumara, 2. Director, The 1st and 2nd Respondents of; the Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 3. Officer-in-Charge, 4. Chief Inspector T.R.K. Pathirana, Officer-in-Charge, Investigation Unit 02 5. Director, The 3rd to 5th Respondents of; The Counter Terrorism Investigation Division, Colombo 01. 6. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS 8. Mr. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Former President, Malalasekera Mawatha, Colombo 07. And of; No. 26, Pangiriwatta Mawatha, Mirihana, Nugegoda. ADDED-RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Chief Justice P. Padman Surasena 📄 Download
27 May 2026 SC/FR/59/2020, SC/FR/60/2020, SC/FR/61/2020 & SC/FR/63/2020
1. Godamunne Bolagedara Jagath Senaka Chandrasekera Bandara, No.786/05, Muwanhelawatta, 1st Lane, Thalangama-North, Battaramulla, Malabe. 2. Kodisinghe Arachchige Jagath Shantha Kodisinghe, Kithalawalana, Meerigama. 3. Amadoruge Palitha Sesiri Amarathunga, Dangashena, Hamangalla, Narangoda. 4. Thammita Arachchige Don Tissa Senanayake, No. 270, Polkotuwa Watta, Pala Hela, Dekatana. 5. Basnayaka Ralalage Dammika Dananjaya Bandara Aruna Shantha Basnayaka, No. 95/A, Katana Road, Hakurukumbura, Meerigama. 6. Pinnaduwage Yasarathna de Silva, No. 181/15, Polhengoda, Kirulapona, Colombo 05. 7. Loku Yaddehige Aruna Shyamantha Chandrapala, 1-1, Quarters, Anderson Flats, Narahenpita. 8. Rammandage Anura Kumara Premarathne, 184/B, Weedagama, Bandaragama. 9. Mahendra Nalin Hettiarachchi, 354/B, Galle Road, Angagoda, Bentota. AND OTHERS 1. Godamunne Bolagedara Jagath Senaka Chandrasekera Bandara, No.786/05, Muwanhelawatta, 1st Lane, Thalangama-North, Battaramulla, Malabe. 2. Kodisinghe Arachchige Jagath Shantha Kodisinghe, Kithalawalana, Meerigama. 3. Amadoruge Palitha Sesiri Amarathunga, Dangashena, Hamangalla, Narangoda. 4. Thammita Arachchige Don Tissa Senanayake, No. 270, Polkotuwa Watta, Pala Hela, Dekatana. 5. Basnayaka Ralalage Dammika Dananjaya Bandara Aruna Shantha Basnayaka, No. 95/A, Katana Road, Hakurukumbura, Meerigama. 6. Pinnaduwage Yasarathna de Silva, No. 181/15, Polhengoda, Kirulapona, Colombo 05. 7. Loku Yaddehige Aruna Shyamantha Chandrapala, 1-1, Quarters, Anderson Flats, Narahenpita. 8. Rammandage Anura Kumara Premarathne, 184/B, Weedagama, Bandaragama. 9. Mahendra Nalin Hettiarachchi, 354/B, Galle Road, Angagoda, Bentota. AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon. Chief Justice P. Padman Surasena 📄 Download
27 May 2026 SC/APPEAL/60/2021
Madurapperuma Appuhamilage Nimal, Madurapperuma of Bathgangoda, Ambepussa, PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – PETITIONER – [APPELLANT] vs 1. Dissanayake Gamage Dharmasena of Maveehena, Ambepussa. 1st DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT – [RESPONDENT] 2. Meerigama Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society, Main Road, Meerigama. 2nd DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT – [RESPONDENT] Madurapperuma Appuhamilage Nimal, Madurapperuma of Bathgangoda, Ambepussa, PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – PETITIONER – [APPELLANT] vs 1. Dissanayake Gamage Dharmasena of Maveehena, Ambepussa. 1st DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT – [RESPONDENT] 2. Meerigama Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society, Main Road, Meerigama. 2nd DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT – [RESPONDENT]
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath K. B. Wijeratne 📄 Download
26 May 2026 SC/FR/400/2021
A.L. Ariyawansa, 7D, Welegoda Road, Rahula Junction, Matara. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, No. 80/5, Govijana Mandiraya, Rajamalwatta Lane, Battaramulla. 2. Commissioner General of Agrarian Development, Department of Agrarian Development, No. 24, Sir Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3. Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Development, Department of Agrarian Development, Galle District Office, Labuduwa, Akmeemana. 4. Director General of Establishments, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Colombo 07. 5. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS A.L. Ariyawansa, 7D, Welegoda Road, Rahula Junction, Matara. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, No. 80/5, Govijana Mandiraya, Rajamalwatta Lane, Battaramulla. 2. Commissioner General of Agrarian Development, Department of Agrarian Development, No. 24, Sir Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3. Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Development, Department of Agrarian Development, Galle District Office, Labuduwa, Akmeemana. 4. Director General of Establishments, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Colombo 07. 5. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon 📄 Download
26 May 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/34/2017
DFCC Bank PLC, (Presently : DFCC Vardhana Bank PLC), (Previously : DFCC Vardhana Bank Limited) No ; 73, W.A.D. Ramanayaka Mawatha, Colombo 2. PLAINTIFF vs Mahasen Sampath Vithanage Happawana, No.326, Pitakotte Road, Pitakotte. DEFENDANT And now Between Mahasen Sampath Vithanage Happawana, No.326, Pitakotte Road, Pitakotte. DEFENDANT - APPELLANT vs DFCC Bank PLC,No. 03, “Chamini”, (Presently : DFCC Vardhana Bank PLC), (Previously : DFCC Vardhana Bank Limited) No ; 73, W.A.D. Ramanayaka Mawatha, Colombo 2. PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENT DFCC Bank PLC, (Presently : DFCC Vardhana Bank PLC), (Previously : DFCC Vardhana Bank Limited) No ; 73, W.A.D. Ramanayaka Mawatha, Colombo 2. PLAINTIFF vs Mahasen Sampath Vithanage Happawana, No.326, Pitakotte Road, Pitakotte. DEFENDANT And now Between Mahasen Sampath Vithanage Happawana, No.326, Pitakotte Road, Pitakotte. DEFENDANT - APPELLANT vs DFCC Bank PLC,No. 03, “Chamini”, (Presently : DFCC Vardhana Bank PLC), (Previously : DFCC Vardhana Bank Limited) No ; 73, W.A.D. Ramanayaka Mawatha, Colombo 2. PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath K. B. Wijeratne 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA SC/CHC/Appeal No. 34/2017 DFCC Bank PLC, HC/CIVIL/134/2012/MR (Presently : DFCC Vardhana Bank PLC), (Previously : DFCC Vardhana Bank Limited) No ; 73, W.A.D. Ramanayaka Mawatha, Colombo 2. PLAINTIFF vs Mahasen Sampath Vithanage Happawana, No.326, Pitakotte Road, Pitakotte. DEFENDANT And now Between Mahasen Sampath Vithanage Happawana, No.326, Pitakotte Road, Pitakotte. DEFENDANT - APPELLANT vs DFCC Bank PLC,No. 03, “Chamini”, (Presently : DFCC Vardhana Bank PLC), (Previously : DFCC Vardhana Bank Limited) No ; 73, W.A.D. Ramanayaka Mawatha, Colombo 2. PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENT 2 BEFORE : Yasantha Kodagoda, P.C., J. A. L. Shiran Gooneratne, J. M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne, J. COUNSEL : Harith de Mel with Hasini Rupasinghe instructed By Chamithri Kaluhennadige for the Defendant- Appellant. Kushan D’ Alwis, P.C. with Kaushalya Nawaratne, P.C. and Sashendra Mudannayake instructed by Tejaka Perera for the Plaintiff – Respondent. ARGUED ON : 09.10.2025 DECIDED ON : 26.05.2026 M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J. Introduction The Plaintiff -Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Plaintiff’) originally instituted the instant action in the High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo (commonly referred to as the Commercial High Court) against the Defendant-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Defendant’) for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,555,008/66 together with interest thereon at the rate of 21% per annum from July 01, 2011 on a sum of Rs. 4,004,547/17 till the date of decree and further interest on decreed sum at the rate of 21% until the payment is made in full. This appeal arises from the judgment of the Commercial High Court, where it was held that the Defendant is liable in his capacity as a guarantor/surety for the repayment of the credit facilities granted by the Plaintiff bank to ICM Micro Computer System (PVT) Ltd (the Principal Debtor). 3 Analysis It is the position of the Defendant that the aforesaid limited liability company has borrowed the amounts in question, and as it is the sole beneficiary of the credit facilities granted, the present action cannot be maintained solely against the Defendant, who is only a guarantor, without making the principal debtor a party to the action. It was submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff that the Defendant is being sued in the Commercial High Court based on the personal guarantee marked ‘P6’ and that the Defendant has assumed liability as the principal debtor in the event of default by the principal debtor, as per ‘P 6’. Therefore, the Plaintiff bank contends that it does not have any obligation to proceed against the principal debtor in the first instance. In light of the arguments presented, first, this Court has to determine whether the Plaintiff can maintain the instant action against the Defendant without making the company, which is the beneficiary of the credit facilities granted, a party to the action and without first proceeding against the said company to recover amounts due. The law applicable in this connection is the Roman-Dutch Law, which is our residual law and not the English law that is applicable concerning issues with respect to the law of banks and banking, as repeatedly held in numerous previously decisions of this Court as well as the Court of Appeal, though the English law approach does not substantially differ from Roman-Dutch law. This was highlighted in the case of Gurusin Appu vs Carlina Hamine1 where the Court applied Roman-Dutch Law in determining the question of liability of a surety. At the outset, let me discuss the approaches of English law and Roman-Dutch law to the law of guarantee. In Paget’s Law of Banking” (12th edn at 701-702) provides “A guarantee obligation is secondary and accessory to the obligation the performance of which is guaranteed; the guarantor undertakes that the 1 2 NLR 307. 4 principal debtor will perform his (the principal debtor’s) obligation to the creditor and that he the (guarantor) will be liable to the creditor if the principal debtor does not perform. Therefore, the guarantor’s liability for the non-performance of the principal debtor’s obligation is co-extensive with that obligation. If the principal debtor’s obligation turns out not to exist, or is void, diminished or discharged so is the guarantors in respect of it” Halsbury’s Laws of England, Secondary liability of the guarantor, (Vol XX, 4th edn at 180): “There are two different kinds of guarantee. One is a promise by the guarantor which becomes effective if the principal debtor fails to perform his obligations. The other is a promise that the principal debtor will perform his obligations. In both cases, the guarantor’s liability is secondary. The guarantor is under no liability if the principal debtor’s obligation is discharged, by performance or otherwise, on or before the date of performance. In the one case, the conditional promise never becomes effective; in the other, there is no breach by the guarantor. Consequently, a creditor may not, before any default has been committed, bring an action quia timet against a guarantor to force him to set apart money to provide for the possibility of a debt becoming due from the principal debtor and the principal debtor making default. Nor can the creditor obtain a Mareva injunction against the guarantor, because he has no accrued cause of action to support it. On the other hand, a guarantor is no more justified in placing the whole of his property out of the reach of liability to pay the guaranteed debt than if he were the principal debtor.” According to the afore-cited English law authorities it is clear that guarantors’ liability would become effective only when the principal debtor fails to perform his obligations. The position of Roman Dutch law with regard to a guarantor is stated in the following manner in Wessels’ Law of Contract in South Africa [Volume II, 2nd edn] in the following manner. “When the debtor is in default the creditor is entitled to demand payment from the surety. ... the mere default of the debtor does not as a rule entitle the creditor to proceed against the surety. The principal 5 debtor must not only first be sued, but he must also be excused, and only after this can the surety be called upon to pay the balance due. Hence, if a surety is sued before the principal debtor, he may advance as an exception or defence the beneficium ordinis seu excussionis – that the principal debtor be first excused before payment is demanded of the surety.” [emphasis added]” A similar view has been expressed in Maasdorp, The Institutes of Cape Law [Volume I, The Law of Obligation, at 357] : “The benefit of excusion, as known to our law, is the right of exception to which a security is entitled, who is being sued before the principal debtor, to demand that the principal shall first be sued and excused; [Voet 46:1:14; Grotius 3:3:27] and, where there are more than one principal debtor, that all shall be excused. It further entitles the surety, where an obligation has been secured as well by the giving of sureties as by a mortgage on immovable property, to claim that the immovable property shall also be excused before he is himself proceeded against.” In Gamini Seneviratne and Another vs Sampath Bank Limited2 Obeyesekere J. thus stated; “[t]he resultant position then is that under the Roman Dutch law, the creditor’s first recourse is to the principal debtor, and the surety becomes liable only once the principal debtor has been excused. Where that has not been done, and subject to certain limitations, the surety shall be entitled to take up the defence that the principal debtor be excused prior to proceeding against the surety. What is significant however is that this defence can be renounced by the surety.” In such circumstances, the Plaintiff can only proceed against the Defendant if there is a valid and enforceable renunciation of the defence to the effect that the principal debtor need not be first sued, and that he must also be excused, before payment is demanded of the guarantor. In the event, the surety/ guarantor expressly renounces his right by agreeing to a specific renunciation of this right, or impliedly renounces his right by accepting 2 SC (CHC) Appeal No. 24/2008 SC Minutes of 08.07.2025. 6 liability as a Principal Debtor and agreeing to be sued without the Debtor excusing the Principal Debtor, the Surety cannot later claim this right or insist that the Creditor must proceed against the Principal Debtor before proceeding against the Surety. Today what we see mostly are contracts guarantor provides a primary or independent undertaking to fulfill the principal debtor’s obligation. The rational for this could be found in in the Supreme Court case of Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Ltd. vs People’s Bank3 where by Eva Wanasundera PCJ, observed “When any party grants an assurance to another party guaranteeing to pay on demand, it is accepted that if the principal does not pay that the guarantor shall pay. It is only on that assurance that the Bank grants the facility which the principal requests from the Bank. That is the norm and accepted practice in the business world. If any Bank takes it to mean that it has to first demand from the principal, then file action against the principal and then only the Bank can demand and file action against the guarantor, there will be no bank who would want to grant any facility to any principal on such a guarantee.” Under contract law, party autonomy is a fundamental concept that emphasizes the freedom of parties to choose the substance of the contract that they are entering into. Accordingly, rights and liabilities that each party has undertaken can only be determined with reference to the agreement parties have entered into. There was no clause in the document marked ‘P 6’ (guarantee) which obligates the Plaintiff bank to first proceed against the principal debtor before demanding the payment from the guarantor/guarantors. Rather, when going through ‘P 6’, it is clear that the Defendant has assumed liability on behalf of the principal debtor in the event of a default. Clause 15 of the said agreement states as follows; “I/we and each of us specially agree that the Bank shall be at liberty, either in one action to sue the debtor and me/us and each or any of us jointly and severally, or to proceed in the first 3 SC (CHC) Appeal No. 18/09, SC Minutes of 17.03.2017. 7 instance against me/us and each or any of us only, and further that I/we and each of us hereby renounce the right to claim that the debtor should be excused or proceeded against by action in the first instance, and (where this guarantee is given by more than one person) the right to claim that the Bank should divide its claim against us and bring actions against us, each for his portion pro rata, and the right to claim in any action brought against all of us that the Bank should only recover from each of us a pro rata share of the amount claimed in that action, and all other rights and benefits to which sureties are or may be by law entitled IT BEING AGREED that I/we and each of us am/are and is liable in all respects hereunder as principal debtor/principal debtors jointly and severally, to the extend aforementioned, including the liability to be sued before recourse is had against the debtor.” When going through ‘P6’, Clause 15 clearly implies that bank has the discretion to proceed against Principal debtor and/or guarantors and/or any of the guarantor for they have already renounced their right to claim ‘the debtor should be excused or proceeded against by action in the first instance’ and ‘to claim that the Bank should divide its claim’ in the event where guarantee is given by more than one person. In such circumstances, the Plaintiff is entitled to maintain the instant action without making the principal debtor a party to the action. In the instant case, the Defendant also claims that he is unaware of the contents of the documents he signed, as they were never explained to him, and that he placed his signature on blank documents. However, such a plea of non-est factum would not succeed unless it could be proven that the person signing the document is illiterate, blind, or lacks the mental capacity to understand what he is signing. Dealing with the burden of proof of a person who seeks to invoke this defense 8 of non-est factum, Dissanayake J. in the Court of Appeal case of Mercantile Credit Ltd vs Thilakaratne4 observed as follows; “The burden of proving that the clauses relating to the renouncing of all benefits and privileges to which sureties are entitled to by law were not understood by him is a special fact within the knowledge of the person alleging it and by virtue of section 101 of the Evidence Ordinance the burden of proving that fact is with the person who asserts that fact. In this case since it was the position of the 2nd defendant respondent that the conditions of the agreement relating to renunciation of the rights and benefits of the guarantors were not understood by him, the burden of proof of that fact lies with the 2nd defendant respondent who alleges it. It is well to be borne in mind that under section 102 of the Evidence Ordinance, the burden of proof lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.” I am also unable to accept the contentions of the Defendant that he did not understand what he was signing, considering his status and background. Even if we are to accept his contention that he signed blank documents, the consequences of such irresponsible conduct must be borne by the Defendant himself. Professor Weeramantry in ‘The Law of Contracts’ (vol. 1) at page 300 thus observed, “A person signing a document is held strictly to its terms on the basis that he does so at his peril. This is known as the caveat subscript or rule, and in the operation of this rule the principles relating to Justus error come into play. This rule must not however be viewed as a special head of exemption from the ordinary rules relating to mistake. Where a person deliberately affixes his signature to a written contract, the court would naturally be more hesitant in permitting him to plead that he did so in consequence of a mistake as to the nature or substance of the transaction, and to this extent would be less prone to view the error as Justus. In 4 (2002) 3 Sri LR 206. 9 accordance with the rules of Justus error the court would not readily come to the aid of a person who states that he did not sufficiently attend to the terms of a contract or did not read it sufficiently carefully, or altogether neglected to read the document containing the contract In accordance with the rules of Justus error the Court would not readily come to the aid of a person who states that he did not sufficiently attend to the terms of a contract or did not read it sufficiently carefully, or altogether neglected to read the document containing the contract. Thus, where a person who is neither illiterate nor blind signs a deed without examining its contents, he would not, as a general rule, be permitted in Roman Dutch Law to setup the plea that the document is not his. If however, without negligence, a person executes a document in ignorance of its true nature, he may repudiate it, and this repudiation holds good even as against 3rd persons who have in good faith acted upon it as a genuine expression of intention.\" The Defendant claims that he has not received any letter of demand sent by the bank. In the Court of Appeal case of Athukorala vs Special Commissioner, Municipal Council, Galle5 Grero J. held that the best proof of notice being sent served is to produce a copy of such notice along with the registered postal receipt. In the instant case, copies of the letter of demand sent and the registered post receipt attached to the Plaint clearly substantiate the fact that the letter of demand has been posted to the Defendant. Further, the Defendant has not produced any material to substantiate his claim that the contents of the bank statements and the amounts due to the bank are incorrect. When the demand (P 11) was made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, the Defendant has not sent any reply. In the ordinary course of business, if a person asserts in a letter to another that a certain state of facts exists, the person receiving such business letter or a letter of demand must reply, if he does not agree with 5 [1994] 3 Sri LR 165. 10 the assertions. The failure to do so would amount to an admission to a claim made therein, as I have already analysed in the previously decided case of Pasan Madanayake vs DFCC Bank PLC.6 This position is very well articulated in Saravanamuttu vs de Mel7 in the following manner. “In business matters, if a person states in a letter to another that a certain state of facts exists, the person to whom the letter is written must reply if he does not agree with or means to dispute the assertions. Otherwise, the silence of the latter amounts to an admission of the truth of the allegations contained in that letter.” For the reasons set out above, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Commercial High Court Judge. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons I affirm the judgment of the Commercial High Court. The Plaintiff shall be entitled to costs of both this Court and the Commercial High Court. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT Yasantha Kodagoda, P.C., J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT A. L. Shiran Gooneratne, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT 6 SC/CHC/Appeal No.38/2023, SC minutes of 26.03.2026. 7 149 NLR 529. 📄 Download
21 May 2026 SC/FR/71/2020
Rathnayake Mudiyaselage Somalatha Rathnayake No.22 F, Kudawewa, Dalukana, Polonnaruwa. Petitioner VS. 1) Neel Bandara Hapuhinna, The Secretary, Ministry of Mahaweli, Agriculture. Irrigation and Rural Development, No. 500, T. B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. 1a) U. D. C. Jayalal, The Secretary, Ministry of Irrigation, No. 500, T. B. Jaya Mawatha, 2) B. A. S. Sunil Perera, Director General, Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka, No. 500, T. B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2a) Keerthi B. Kotagama, Director General, Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka No. 500, T. B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3) K. C. A. Wimal Kumara Project Manager (C Zone), Dehiaththakandiya Mahaweli Authority. 4) R. M. S. Rathnayake Block Manager. Block Manager\'s Office, Weheragala, Ruhunugama, Polonnaruwa. 5) W. G. Nevil Jayasiri, Block Manager, Block Manager\'s Office, Weheragala, Ruhunugama, Polonnaruwa. 6) Senaka Rajapaksha, Member of Pradeshiya Saba Dimbulagala, Pradeshiya Sabawa, No 124, Weheragala, Ruhunugama, Polonnaruwa. 7) Jagath Samarawickrama, Ex President of the Dimbulagala, Pradeshiya Saba, Lanka Filling Station, Siripura, Polonnaruwa. 8) Roshan Ranasinghe, Ex MP and Ex State Minister Mahaweli Development, Sirisangabo Pedesa, Polonnaruwa. 9) Honourable Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents Rathnayake Mudiyaselage Somalatha Rathnayake No.22 F, Kudawewa, Dalukana, Polonnaruwa. Petitioner VS. 1) Neel Bandara Hapuhinna, The Secretary, Ministry of Mahaweli, Agriculture. Irrigation and Rural Development, No. 500, T. B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. 1a) U. D. C. Jayalal, The Secretary, Ministry of Irrigation, No. 500, T. B. Jaya Mawatha, 2) B. A. S. Sunil Perera, Director General, Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka, No. 500, T. B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2a) Keerthi B. Kotagama, Director General, Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka No. 500, T. B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3) K. C. A. Wimal Kumara Project Manager (C Zone), Dehiaththakandiya Mahaweli Authority. 4) R. M. S. Rathnayake Block Manager. Block Manager\'s Office, Weheragala, Ruhunugama, Polonnaruwa. 5) W. G. Nevil Jayasiri, Block Manager, Block Manager\'s Office, Weheragala, Ruhunugama, Polonnaruwa. 6) Senaka Rajapaksha, Member of Pradeshiya Saba Dimbulagala, Pradeshiya Sabawa, No 124, Weheragala, Ruhunugama, Polonnaruwa. 7) Jagath Samarawickrama, Ex President of the Dimbulagala, Pradeshiya Saba, Lanka Filling Station, Siripura, Polonnaruwa. 8) Roshan Ranasinghe, Ex MP and Ex State Minister Mahaweli Development, Sirisangabo Pedesa, Polonnaruwa. 9) Honourable Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
21 May 2026 SC/FR/165/2024
1. Padmasiri Navarathna Rathnagiri,Ambagahawatta, Baddegama. 2. G. D. Nirosha Perera, 300/11, Wackwalla Road, Galle, 3. H. M. M. Farook Yasin Bawa Road, Madawachchiya, Valachchanai. AND OTHER 16 PETITIONER -Vs. 1. Mr. Pradeep Yasarathna Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 2. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena Minister of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 3. Mr. Sanath J. Ediriweera Chairman Public Service Commission AND OTHERS 1. Padmasiri Navarathna Rathnagiri,Ambagahawatta, Baddegama. 2. G. D. Nirosha Perera, 300/11, Wackwalla Road, Galle, 3. H. M. M. Farook Yasin Bawa Road, Madawachchiya, Valachchanai. AND OTHER 16 PETITIONER -Vs. 1. Mr. Pradeep Yasarathna Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 2. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena Minister of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 3. Mr. Sanath J. Ediriweera Chairman Public Service Commission AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
21 May 2026 SC/APPEAL/47/2018
Karunahaluge Lal Sumithkumara Presently at No. 72, Elton Avenue, Wembley, Middlesex HAO 3AU, United Kingdom. Appearing by his Power of Attorney Kalubandanage Sunil Manajjawa, Ambalantota PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTAPPELLANT Vs. 1. Karunahaluge Sarath Kumara Deepawansa No. 55/11A, Heenatikumbura Thalangama North, Thalangama, Battaramulla 2. Mohamed Ashpak Amardeen No. 64, Ambalanwatte, Heenatikumbura Battaramulla DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTRESPONDENTS Karunahaluge Lal Sumithkumara Presently at No. 72, Elton Avenue, Wembley, Middlesex HAO 3AU, United Kingdom. Appearing by his Power of Attorney Kalubandanage Sunil Manajjawa, Ambalantota PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTAPPELLANT Vs. 1. Karunahaluge Sarath Kumara Deepawansa No. 55/11A, Heenatikumbura Thalangama North, Thalangama, Battaramulla 2. Mohamed Ashpak Amardeen No. 64, Ambalanwatte, Heenatikumbura Battaramulla DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTRESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne 📄 Download
21 May 2026 SC/FR/394/2007
1. Alankara Mudiyanselage Chandrathilaka Bandara 153/5, Kirulapona Mawatha, Colombo 05 2. Wijesinghe Mudiyanselge Kumara Rathnasiri Malalasekara 425 C, Manakada Road, Kadawatha. 3. Polgollegedara Bandula Kumara Wikramasinghe 130, Paolayaya, Raththota. 4. Sinha Aracchilage Nirmali Menaka Seneviratne 163/3, \"Sandasiri\", Mawathawatta, Kadawatha. (DISCHARGED FROM PROCEEDINGS) 5. Jayasinghe Deveyala Susantha NevilDepawansha 125, Arampolwatta, Mawathagama. 6. Herath Mudiyanselage Thushara Manthriratne 30/3, Peellagama Watte, Sumangala Mawatha, Polgahawela. 7. Liyanage Don Jagath Mahinda 276, Gonagaldeniya, Waharake. 8. Sinhala Pedige Gamini Dharadasa Medagedara, Parabawila, Pothuhera. 9. Ratnayaka Mudiyanselage Amara Divakara Ratnayake \'Ratnashram ‘E Walpola, Gokaralla. 10. Sanadasiri Pathirannahalage Chithra Chandani Sandagiri 103 A 1, Walpola, Rukgahawila. 11. Kuranage Jeewa Subashini Kuranage 4/3/2, Kottalanda, Nungamuwa. 12. Palagamage Gedara Jayathilake 92/7, Urapola Road, Pilimathalawa. 13. Samarasinghe Mudiyanselage Sarath Hemapala Samarasingha 47, Sri Wajiragnana Mawatha, Colombo 09. 14. Edirimuni Rodrigo Sujith Bhathiya Ediriweera 528 b, Bodhirja Mawatha, Thalawathugoda. 15. Rupahin Gangoda Anurarathna 179/2, Polhena, Madapatha, Piliyandala. 16. Mapa Appuhamilage Padmasiri Ariyaratne, 146, Bulathweldeniya, Nikahetikand. 17. Mirisage Priyantha Ranjith Washinton Gunawardena Mawatha, Dummaladuriya. (DISCHARGED FROM PROCEEDINGS) 18. Serasinghe Thotagamuwage Saman Keerthi Serasinghe 1/9, Gamunu Mawatha, Kotuwegoda, Rajagiriya. 19. Nanda Sanjeewa Weerathunga, ‘Ajantha’, Sapugoda, Kamburupitiya. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Director General of Customs, Department of Sri Lanka Customs, PO Box 618, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. 2. Duminda Jayaratna Director, Customs (Personnel) Department of Sri Lanka Customs, PO Box 618, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. 3. Dr. R.H.S. Samaratunga, Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 4. S. B. Divaratne, Former Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 5. P.B. Abeykoon Secretary to His Excellency the President, Presidential Secretariat, Colombo 01. 6(a). K.L.L. Wijeratne Chairman, National Salaries and Cadre Commission, Room 2-116, BMICH, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo and Others. 1. Alankara Mudiyanselage Chandrathilaka Bandara 153/5, Kirulapona Mawatha, Colombo 05 2. Wijesinghe Mudiyanselge Kumara Rathnasiri Malalasekara 425 C, Manakada Road, Kadawatha. 3. Polgollegedara Bandula Kumara Wikramasinghe 130, Paolayaya, Raththota. 4. Sinha Aracchilage Nirmali Menaka Seneviratne 163/3, \"Sandasiri\", Mawathawatta, Kadawatha. (DISCHARGED FROM PROCEEDINGS) 5. Jayasinghe Deveyala Susantha NevilDepawansha 125, Arampolwatta, Mawathagama. 6. Herath Mudiyanselage Thushara Manthriratne 30/3, Peellagama Watte, Sumangala Mawatha, Polgahawela. 7. Liyanage Don Jagath Mahinda 276, Gonagaldeniya, Waharake. 8. Sinhala Pedige Gamini Dharadasa Medagedara, Parabawila, Pothuhera. 9. Ratnayaka Mudiyanselage Amara Divakara Ratnayake \'Ratnashram ‘E Walpola, Gokaralla. 10. Sanadasiri Pathirannahalage Chithra Chandani Sandagiri 103 A 1, Walpola, Rukgahawila. 11. Kuranage Jeewa Subashini Kuranage 4/3/2, Kottalanda, Nungamuwa. 12. Palagamage Gedara Jayathilake 92/7, Urapola Road, Pilimathalawa. 13. Samarasinghe Mudiyanselage Sarath Hemapala Samarasingha 47, Sri Wajiragnana Mawatha, Colombo 09. 14. Edirimuni Rodrigo Sujith Bhathiya Ediriweera 528 b, Bodhirja Mawatha, Thalawathugoda. 15. Rupahin Gangoda Anurarathna 179/2, Polhena, Madapatha, Piliyandala. 16. Mapa Appuhamilage Padmasiri Ariyaratne, 146, Bulathweldeniya, Nikahetikand. 17. Mirisage Priyantha Ranjith Washinton Gunawardena Mawatha, Dummaladuriya. (DISCHARGED FROM PROCEEDINGS) 18. Serasinghe Thotagamuwage Saman Keerthi Serasinghe 1/9, Gamunu Mawatha, Kotuwegoda, Rajagiriya. 19. Nanda Sanjeewa Weerathunga, ‘Ajantha’, Sapugoda, Kamburupitiya. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Director General of Customs, Department of Sri Lanka Customs, PO Box 618, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. 2. Duminda Jayaratna Director, Customs (Personnel) Department of Sri Lanka Customs, PO Box 618, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. 3. Dr. R.H.S. Samaratunga, Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 4. S. B. Divaratne, Former Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 5. P.B. Abeykoon Secretary to His Excellency the President, Presidential Secretariat, Colombo 01. 6(a). K.L.L. Wijeratne Chairman, National Salaries and Cadre Commission, Room 2-116, BMICH, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo and Others.
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna 📄 Download
20 May 2026 SC/APPEAL/1/2022
T. A. Roopa Thenuwara, No. 11/67, Bodiya Road, Mirihana. And Now No.93, Bia Bellaarta, Soma Lomeardo, Barese 2119, Italy. DEFENDANT – APPEALLNT – PETITIONER – [APPELLANT] T. A. Donald, No. CG6, Kammalwatta Flats, Dematagoda Road, Colombo 09. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT – [RESPONDENT] T. A. Roopa Thenuwara, No. 11/67, Bodiya Road, Mirihana. And Now No.93, Bia Bellaarta, Soma Lomeardo, Barese 2119, Italy. DEFENDANT – APPEALLNT – PETITIONER – [APPELLANT] T. A. Donald, No. CG6, Kammalwatta Flats, Dematagoda Road, Colombo 09. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT – [RESPONDENT]
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath K. B. Wijeratne 📄 Download
19 May 2026 SC/FR/8/2025
W.S. Sathyananda, ‘Nila Piyasa’, 4, Hector Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Colombo 7. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Professor Kapila Perera, Secretary, Ministry of Transport, Highways, Ports and Civil Aviation, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 1. 2. Hon. Bimal Rathnayake, Minister of Transport, Highways, Ports and Civil Aviation, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 1. 3. Mr. S. Aloka Bandara, Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 4. Hon. Dr. A.H.M.H. Abayarathna, Minister of Public Administration, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 5. Sanath J. Ediriweera, Chairman, Public Service Commission. 6. W.H.M.M.C.K. Dayaratne, Secretary, Public Service Commission. 7. S.M. Mohamed 8. N.H.M. Chithrananda 9. Prof. N. Selvakkumaran 10. M.B.R. Pushpakumara 11. Dr. A.D.N. de Zoysa 12. R. Nadarajapillai 13. C. Pallegama 14. G.S.A. de Silva, PC 7th – 14th Respondents are Members of the Public Service Commission. 5th – 14th Respondents are at No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 15. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS W.S. Sathyananda, ‘Nila Piyasa’, 4, Hector Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Colombo 7. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Professor Kapila Perera, Secretary, Ministry of Transport, Highways, Ports and Civil Aviation, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 1. 2. Hon. Bimal Rathnayake, Minister of Transport, Highways, Ports and Civil Aviation, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 1. 3. Mr. S. Aloka Bandara, Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 4. Hon. Dr. A.H.M.H. Abayarathna, Minister of Public Administration, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 5. Sanath J. Ediriweera, Chairman, Public Service Commission. 6. W.H.M.M.C.K. Dayaratne, Secretary, Public Service Commission. 7. S.M. Mohamed 8. N.H.M. Chithrananda 9. Prof. N. Selvakkumaran 10. M.B.R. Pushpakumara 11. Dr. A.D.N. de Zoysa 12. R. Nadarajapillai 13. C. Pallegama 14. G.S.A. de Silva, PC 7th – 14th Respondents are Members of the Public Service Commission. 5th – 14th Respondents are at No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 15. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere 📄 Download
18 May 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/26/2017
1. Siddiaratchchige Noel Anthony Nihal de Silva, No. 236, Waragoda Road, Kelaniya. 2. Siddiaratchige Dulanjan Shamal Siddiaratchi, 3. Siddiaratchige Isuru Chinthaka Augustine Siddiaratchi, Both of No. 236, Waragoda Road, Kelaniya. Both presently at 2, Zimmer St., Brampton Ontario, L6S6L3, Canada. Appearing by their lawful Attorney PETITIONER-APPELLANTS Vs. 1. Augustine Motors (Pvt) Limited, No. 57 & 59, Jayantha Weerasekera Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. K. A. D. T. A. R. Shanthapriya, No. 59, 1/1, Jayantha Weerasekera Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. K. D. K. D. A. Kathriarachchi, No. 86, Galpoththa Road, Nawala. 4. K. D. G. A. C. Kathriarachchi, No. 86, Galpoththa Road, Nawala. 5. Cyrus Corporate Services (Pvt) Ltd., No. A2, Matha Road, Colombo 08. 6. A. J. S. Associates Chartered Accountants, No. 100/20, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 7. The Registrar of Companies, No. 400, D. R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS 1. Siddiaratchchige Noel Anthony Nihal de Silva, No. 236, Waragoda Road, Kelaniya. 2. Siddiaratchige Dulanjan Shamal Siddiaratchi, 3. Siddiaratchige Isuru Chinthaka Augustine Siddiaratchi, Both of No. 236, Waragoda Road, Kelaniya. Both presently at 2, Zimmer St., Brampton Ontario, L6S6L3, Canada. Appearing by their lawful Attorney PETITIONER-APPELLANTS Vs. 1. Augustine Motors (Pvt) Limited, No. 57 & 59, Jayantha Weerasekera Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. K. A. D. T. A. R. Shanthapriya, No. 59, 1/1, Jayantha Weerasekera Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. K. D. K. D. A. Kathriarachchi, No. 86, Galpoththa Road, Nawala. 4. K. D. G. A. C. Kathriarachchi, No. 86, Galpoththa Road, Nawala. 5. Cyrus Corporate Services (Pvt) Ltd., No. A2, Matha Road, Colombo 08. 6. A. J. S. Associates Chartered Accountants, No. 100/20, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 7. The Registrar of Companies, No. 400, D. R. Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon.Justice K.M.G.H.Kulatunga 📄 Download
15 May 2026 SC/APPEAL/94/2019 AND SC/APPEAL/95/2019
Sri Lanka Savings Bank Ltd. No. 265, Ward Place, Colombo 08. ADDED RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. P.P.L.Gomez (2/646/2004) No.240-D, Koswatta Road, Kalapaluwawa. Rajagiriya. 2. M.P.Hettiarchchi (2/649/2004) No.260, Dodamwala Passage, Aniwatte, Kandy. 3. C.W.Abeywickrama (2/650/2004) No.488/1, Thalangama North, Battaramulla. 4. A.H.A.Mendis (2/651/2004) No.7B, Charles de Soysa Place, Idama, Moratuwa. 5. A.C. Ferreira, (2/652/2004) No.10/12, Central Lane, Thalpitiya South, Wadduwa. 6. A.N.D.Mendis (2/653/2004) No.7B, Charles de Soysa Place, Idama, Moratuwa. 7. M.S.J.S. Peiris (2/654/2004) No.65, Katukurunda, Moratuwa. 8. D.Coilparampil (2/657/2004) No.4/3C, Katukurundawatta Road, 1st Lane, Ratmalana. 9. U.Amaraweera, (2/658/2004) No.80, Thotupala Road, EtulKotte, Kotte. 10. E.W.Wijesinghe (2/659/2004) No.4A, 1st Lane, Model Town Road, Ratmalana. 11. N.K.R.S. Muthukumarana (2/660/2004) No.31, Rohana Mawatha, Sri Subuthipura, Battaramulla. 12. G.R.S.Rasiah (2/661/2004) No.1055/1, Maradana Road, Colombo 08. 13. W.N.A.Y.Dharmasiri (2/662/2004) No.242/1A, Asiri Mawatha, Pahala Karagahamuna, Kadawatha. 14. M.C.A. Kurukulasuriya (2/663/2004) No.19/1A, Jubilee Road, Laxapathiya, Moratuwa. 15. W.F.U.Fernando (2/664/2004) No.19/2, Charles de Soysa Place, Idama, Moratuwa. 16. M.A.L.Fernando (2/665/2004) No.27/5, Weeraman Road, Panadura. 17. K.J. Wijerathne (2/666/2004) No.41/90, Weerawa Place, Ragama Road, Kadawatha. 18. G.B.K. Ranasinghe , (2/667/2004) No.3, Alwis Place, Attidiya, Dehiwala. 19. G.H. Wijesooriya, (2/668/2004) No.2/18, Samanala Place, Walpola, Angoda. 20. K.H.P.K. Silva (2/670/2004) No. 36, Wickramasinghepura, Battaramulla. 21. N.P.A. Siripala, (2/671/2004) No.210, “Sudam” Malwatta Road, Kaludewala, Panadura. 22. S.S. Bodhiseela, (2/672/2004) No.19/A, Sudwella Road, Panadura. 23. F.H.S.P. Silva , (2/673/2004) No.502, Kuda Arukgoda, Alubomulla. 24. H.B.S. Wijesinghe, (2/674/2004) No.126/6, Pahala Karagahamuna, Kadawatha. 25. W.G.M. Meththika, (2/675/2004) No.37, Nikape Road, Dehiwala. 26. S.R.D.S. Fernando, (2/676/2004) No.35, Gammana Road, Maharagma. 27. F.Z. Faiz, (2/677/2004) No.8/7, Ramanathan Avenue, Off Fraser Avenue, Dehiwala. 28. W.W.P.N. Wegiriya (2/678/2004) No.17, Sudharman Mawatha, Rajamaha Vihara Road, Pitakotte. 29. G.M. Wimalarathne, (2/679/2004) No.22-C, Ihalagama, Gampaha. APPLICANTS-RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS 30. Pramuka Savings and Development Bank Ltd. Centre for Banking Studies, Central Bank, No. 58, Sri Jayawardenepura Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 31. Director Bank Supervision, Bank Supervision Department, Central Bank of Sri Lanka, No. 30, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS Sri Lanka Savings Bank Ltd. No. 265, Ward Place, Colombo 08. ADDED RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. P.P.L.Gomez (2/646/2004) No.240-D, Koswatta Road, Kalapaluwawa. Rajagiriya. 2. M.P.Hettiarchchi (2/649/2004) No.260, Dodamwala Passage, Aniwatte, Kandy. 3. C.W.Abeywickrama (2/650/2004) No.488/1, Thalangama North, Battaramulla. 4. A.H.A.Mendis (2/651/2004) No.7B, Charles de Soysa Place, Idama, Moratuwa. 5. A.C. Ferreira, (2/652/2004) No.10/12, Central Lane, Thalpitiya South, Wadduwa. 6. A.N.D.Mendis (2/653/2004) No.7B, Charles de Soysa Place, Idama, Moratuwa. 7. M.S.J.S. Peiris (2/654/2004) No.65, Katukurunda, Moratuwa. 8. D.Coilparampil (2/657/2004) No.4/3C, Katukurundawatta Road, 1st Lane, Ratmalana. 9. U.Amaraweera, (2/658/2004) No.80, Thotupala Road, EtulKotte, Kotte. 10. E.W.Wijesinghe (2/659/2004) No.4A, 1st Lane, Model Town Road, Ratmalana. 11. N.K.R.S. Muthukumarana (2/660/2004) No.31, Rohana Mawatha, Sri Subuthipura, Battaramulla. 12. G.R.S.Rasiah (2/661/2004) No.1055/1, Maradana Road, Colombo 08. 13. W.N.A.Y.Dharmasiri (2/662/2004) No.242/1A, Asiri Mawatha, Pahala Karagahamuna, Kadawatha. 14. M.C.A. Kurukulasuriya (2/663/2004) No.19/1A, Jubilee Road, Laxapathiya, Moratuwa. 15. W.F.U.Fernando (2/664/2004) No.19/2, Charles de Soysa Place, Idama, Moratuwa. 16. M.A.L.Fernando (2/665/2004) No.27/5, Weeraman Road, Panadura. 17. K.J. Wijerathne (2/666/2004) No.41/90, Weerawa Place, Ragama Road, Kadawatha. 18. G.B.K. Ranasinghe , (2/667/2004) No.3, Alwis Place, Attidiya, Dehiwala. 19. G.H. Wijesooriya, (2/668/2004) No.2/18, Samanala Place, Walpola, Angoda. 20. K.H.P.K. Silva (2/670/2004) No. 36, Wickramasinghepura, Battaramulla. 21. N.P.A. Siripala, (2/671/2004) No.210, “Sudam” Malwatta Road, Kaludewala, Panadura. 22. S.S. Bodhiseela, (2/672/2004) No.19/A, Sudwella Road, Panadura. 23. F.H.S.P. Silva , (2/673/2004) No.502, Kuda Arukgoda, Alubomulla. 24. H.B.S. Wijesinghe, (2/674/2004) No.126/6, Pahala Karagahamuna, Kadawatha. 25. W.G.M. Meththika, (2/675/2004) No.37, Nikape Road, Dehiwala. 26. S.R.D.S. Fernando, (2/676/2004) No.35, Gammana Road, Maharagma. 27. F.Z. Faiz, (2/677/2004) No.8/7, Ramanathan Avenue, Off Fraser Avenue, Dehiwala. 28. W.W.P.N. Wegiriya (2/678/2004) No.17, Sudharman Mawatha, Rajamaha Vihara Road, Pitakotte. 29. G.M. Wimalarathne, (2/679/2004) No.22-C, Ihalagama, Gampaha. APPLICANTS-RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS 30. Pramuka Savings and Development Bank Ltd. Centre for Banking Studies, Central Bank, No. 58, Sri Jayawardenepura Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 31. Director Bank Supervision, Bank Supervision Department, Central Bank of Sri Lanka, No. 30, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna 📄 Download
15 May 2026 SC/APPEAL/192/2018
1A. Sri Narayana Kapuralalage Kularatne Menike, 1B. Samarasinghege Jayasundera Pushpika Bandara, 1C. Samarasinghege Jayasundera Yasantha Dhanushka Bandara, All of No. 4, Church Road (Palliya Para), Ratnapura. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-APPELLANTS Vs. Naiyandikarage Vidyananda, ‘Vijithapaya’, Marapana, Ratnapura. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT 1A. Sri Narayana Kapuralalage Kularatne Menike, 1B. Samarasinghege Jayasundera Pushpika Bandara, 1C. Samarasinghege Jayasundera Yasantha Dhanushka Bandara, All of No. 4, Church Road (Palliya Para), Ratnapura. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-APPELLANTS Vs. Naiyandikarage Vidyananda, ‘Vijithapaya’, Marapana, Ratnapura. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna 📄 Download
15 May 2026 SC/FR/169/2022
1. H.G.N. Thilakshi No. 65, Maspotha Watta, Maspotha. 2. W.I. Jayantha Sugath Kumara No. 137/3, Old School Road, Aluvihare, Matale. 3. N.T. Poodaluella No. 209/F, Janaraja Mawatha, Ranawana Road, Katugastota. 4. J.M.A.D. Jayasinghe No. 92A, Kalukondayawa, Malwana. 5. R. Batagoda No. 72, Ranathisara Uyana, Kamuburugamuwa. 6. L.P.A. Meedeniya No. 30, Akkara 20, Galapitamulla, Hindagolla. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. P.D.D.S.Muthukumarana Government Chief Valuer Department of Valuation, Valuation House No. 748, Maradana Road, Colombo 10. 2. A.S.W.K. Nanayakkara Additional Chief Valuer Department of Valuation, Valuation House No. 748, Maradana Road, Colombo 10. 3. Justice Jagath Balapatabendi, Chairman, 4. Indrani Sugathadasa, Member, 5. T.R.C. Ruberu, Member, 6. Ahamod Lebbe Mohamed Saleem, Member, 7. Dian Gomes, Member, 8. Dilith Jayaweera, Member, 9. W.H. Piyadasa, Member, 10. Suntharam Arumainayaham, Member, The 3rd to 10th Respondents all of: Public Service Commission, No 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 11. Secretary, Public Service Commission, No 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. AND OTHERS 1. H.G.N. Thilakshi No. 65, Maspotha Watta, Maspotha. 2. W.I. Jayantha Sugath Kumara No. 137/3, Old School Road, Aluvihare, Matale. 3. N.T. Poodaluella No. 209/F, Janaraja Mawatha, Ranawana Road, Katugastota. 4. J.M.A.D. Jayasinghe No. 92A, Kalukondayawa, Malwana. 5. R. Batagoda No. 72, Ranathisara Uyana, Kamuburugamuwa. 6. L.P.A. Meedeniya No. 30, Akkara 20, Galapitamulla, Hindagolla. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. P.D.D.S.Muthukumarana Government Chief Valuer Department of Valuation, Valuation House No. 748, Maradana Road, Colombo 10. 2. A.S.W.K. Nanayakkara Additional Chief Valuer Department of Valuation, Valuation House No. 748, Maradana Road, Colombo 10. 3. Justice Jagath Balapatabendi, Chairman, 4. Indrani Sugathadasa, Member, 5. T.R.C. Ruberu, Member, 6. Ahamod Lebbe Mohamed Saleem, Member, 7. Dian Gomes, Member, 8. Dilith Jayaweera, Member, 9. W.H. Piyadasa, Member, 10. Suntharam Arumainayaham, Member, The 3rd to 10th Respondents all of: Public Service Commission, No 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 11. Secretary, Public Service Commission, No 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna 📄 Download
14 May 2026 SC/APPEAL/8/2015
1. M.J. Ahamed Azwar No. 51/35, Sri Vipulasena Mawatha, Maradana, Colombo 10. 1(a) Fathima Mahiya Hussain, 1(b) Fathima Silmiya, 1(c) Ahamed Azwer Mohomed Azam, 1(d) Ahamed Infaz All of: No 22/7, Elias Place, Ketawalamulla, Colombo 09. Substituted-Plaintiff-Appellant- Appellants Vs 1. Sunil Silva also known as Sunil de Silva, No. 2812, Havelock Road, Colombo 05 1(a). Chandrani Silva also known as Chandrani de Silva, No. 2812, Havelock Road, Colombo 05. 1(b). Shyamali Silva, also known as Shyamali de Silva, No. 2812, Havelock Road, Colombo 05. Presently at: No. 1586/5, Malabe Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. And also at: No. 67, Rosemary Avenue, Hounslow, Middlesex TW4 7JQ, United Kingdom. 1(c). Lakmali Roshani de Silva, No. 515, Havelock Road, Wellawatta. 1(d). Atukoralalage Padmalatha, No. 515, Havelock Road, Pamankade, Wellawatta. 1(e). Kaluthota Hewage Hemapala, No. 469, Wewa Road, Boralesgamuwa. 1(f). Harsha Dananjaya, No. 469, Wewa Road, Boralesgamuwa. 1(g). Sriyani De Silva, No. 281, Havelock Road, Wellawatta, Colombo 06. Substituted-Defendant-Respondent- Respondents (2). Chandrani Silva, also known as Chandrani de Silva, No. 2812, Havelock Road, Colombo 05. (3). Shyamali Silva also known as Shyamali de Silva, No. 2812, Havelock Road, Colombo 05. Presently at: No. 1586/5, Malabe Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. And also at: No. 67, Rosemary Avenue, Hounslow, Middlesex TW4 7JQ, United Kingdom. Defendant-Respondent- Respondents 1. M.J. Ahamed Azwar No. 51/35, Sri Vipulasena Mawatha, Maradana, Colombo 10. 1(a) Fathima Mahiya Hussain, 1(b) Fathima Silmiya, 1(c) Ahamed Azwer Mohomed Azam, 1(d) Ahamed Infaz All of: No 22/7, Elias Place, Ketawalamulla, Colombo 09. Substituted-Plaintiff-Appellant- Appellants Vs 1. Sunil Silva also known as Sunil de Silva, No. 2812, Havelock Road, Colombo 05 1(a). Chandrani Silva also known as Chandrani de Silva, No. 2812, Havelock Road, Colombo 05. 1(b). Shyamali Silva, also known as Shyamali de Silva, No. 2812, Havelock Road, Colombo 05. Presently at: No. 1586/5, Malabe Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. And also at: No. 67, Rosemary Avenue, Hounslow, Middlesex TW4 7JQ, United Kingdom. 1(c). Lakmali Roshani de Silva, No. 515, Havelock Road, Wellawatta. 1(d). Atukoralalage Padmalatha, No. 515, Havelock Road, Pamankade, Wellawatta. 1(e). Kaluthota Hewage Hemapala, No. 469, Wewa Road, Boralesgamuwa. 1(f). Harsha Dananjaya, No. 469, Wewa Road, Boralesgamuwa. 1(g). Sriyani De Silva, No. 281, Havelock Road, Wellawatta, Colombo 06. Substituted-Defendant-Respondent- Respondents (2). Chandrani Silva, also known as Chandrani de Silva, No. 2812, Havelock Road, Colombo 05. (3). Shyamali Silva also known as Shyamali de Silva, No. 2812, Havelock Road, Colombo 05. Presently at: No. 1586/5, Malabe Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. And also at: No. 67, Rosemary Avenue, Hounslow, Middlesex TW4 7JQ, United Kingdom. Defendant-Respondent- Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne 📄 Download
14 May 2026 SC/FR/347/2018 WITH SC/FR/387/2018, SC/FR/388/2018, SC/FR/392/2018 AND SC/FR/07/2019
1. Ranasinghe Arachchige Don Sajith Manohara, (Inspector of Police), No. 30/B, Kajugahawatta, Gothatuwa. 2. Pathirajage Darmasiri Wasantha Kumara, (Inspector of Police), No. 234/5/1/1, Police Quaters, Sapugaskanda. 3. Loku Dadallage Wasantha Kumara, (Inspector of Police), No. 175/1, Wewalduwa, Kelaniya. 4. Marappulige Samarathilaka, (Inspector of Police), No. 3/11, Wihara Mawatha, Narangodapaluwa, Ragama. 5. Kaluarachchige Rasika Sundara Srimal Gunasinghe, (Inspector of Police), No. 1125, Sri Jiwasa, Thalawathugoda, PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Mr. Pujith Jayasundara Inspector General of Police, Colombo 01. 1A. Mr. C.D. Wickramaratne, Inspector General of Police (acting), Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 1B. Mr. C.D Wickramaratne Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 1C. Mr. Deshabandu Thennakoon, Inspector General of Police (acting) Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 1D. Mr. Priyantha Weerasooriya, Inspector General of Police (acting) Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 2. Mr. P. H. Manatunga, Chairman, National Police Commission. 2A. Mr. K.W.E. Karaliyadda, Chairman, National Police Commission. 2B. Mr. S. C. S. Fernando, Chairman, National Police Commission. 2C. Mr. E. W. M. Lalith Ekanayake Chairman, National Police Commission. 3. Prof. S.T. Hettige Member, National Police Commission. 3A. Mr. Gamini Nawarathne, Member, National Police Commission. 3B. Mr. T. P. Paramaswaran, Member, National Police Commission. 3C. Mrs. D. K. Renuka Ekanayake Member, National Police Commission. 4. Mrs. Savithri Wijesekere Member, National Police Commission. 4A. Mr. G. Wickramage, Member, National Police Commission. 4B. Mr. K. Karunaharan, Member, National Police Commission. 5. Mr. B.A. Jeyanathan, Member, National Police Commission. 5A. Mr. Ashoka Wijethilaka Member, National Police Commission. 5B. Mr. M.P.P. Perera Member, National Police Commission. 5C. Mr. P. G. S. Gamini de Silva Member, National Police Commission. 6. Mr. Y. L. M. Zawahir Member, National Police Commission. 6A. Mr. S. Liyanagama Member, National Police Commission. 6B. Mr. D. Kapila Jayasuriya, Member, National Police Commission. 7. Mr. Tilak Collure Member, National Police Commission. 7A. Mr. A.S.P.S.P. Sanjeewa, Member, National Police Commission. 7B. Mr. A. A. M. Illiyas, Member, National Police Commission. 8. Mr. Frank De Silva, Member, National Police Commission. 8A. Mr. G. Jayakumar, Member, National Police Commission, 8B. Mr. N.S.M. Samsundeen Member, National Police Commission. 9. Mr. D. M. Saman Dissanayake Secretary, National Police Commission. 9A. Mr. Nishantha A. Weerasinghe Secretary, National Police Commission. 9B. Mrs. Samanthi Mihindukula, Secretary, National Police Commssion. 9C. Mrs. Thamara D. Perera, Secretary, National Police Commission. All of 2nd to 9th Respondents, BMICH Premises, Block 9, Colombo 07. 10. R.A.D.S.P. Ranasinghe 11. S.M.T.K.G. Bandara 12. U.S. Liyanapathirana 13. V. Amudan 14. U.M. Chaminda Kumara 15. D.M. Pathmasiri 16. W.A.D.N. Sanjeewa 17. U.K.J.A. Shantha 18. J.A.C. Jayalath 19. N.A.N.D. Nasagoda 20. T.U.N. Peiris 21. A.M.R. Polgolla 22. H.M. Senarathbandara 23. E.P. Chaminda Edirisooriya. All Care of Personal Division, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 24. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS 1. Ranasinghe Arachchige Don Sajith Manohara, (Inspector of Police), No. 30/B, Kajugahawatta, Gothatuwa. 2. Pathirajage Darmasiri Wasantha Kumara, (Inspector of Police), No. 234/5/1/1, Police Quaters, Sapugaskanda. 3. Loku Dadallage Wasantha Kumara, (Inspector of Police), No. 175/1, Wewalduwa, Kelaniya. 4. Marappulige Samarathilaka, (Inspector of Police), No. 3/11, Wihara Mawatha, Narangodapaluwa, Ragama. 5. Kaluarachchige Rasika Sundara Srimal Gunasinghe, (Inspector of Police), No. 1125, Sri Jiwasa, Thalawathugoda, PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Mr. Pujith Jayasundara Inspector General of Police, Colombo 01. 1A. Mr. C.D. Wickramaratne, Inspector General of Police (acting), Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 1B. Mr. C.D Wickramaratne Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 1C. Mr. Deshabandu Thennakoon, Inspector General of Police (acting) Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 1D. Mr. Priyantha Weerasooriya, Inspector General of Police (acting) Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 2. Mr. P. H. Manatunga, Chairman, National Police Commission. 2A. Mr. K.W.E. Karaliyadda, Chairman, National Police Commission. 2B. Mr. S. C. S. Fernando, Chairman, National Police Commission. 2C. Mr. E. W. M. Lalith Ekanayake Chairman, National Police Commission. 3. Prof. S.T. Hettige Member, National Police Commission. 3A. Mr. Gamini Nawarathne, Member, National Police Commission. 3B. Mr. T. P. Paramaswaran, Member, National Police Commission. 3C. Mrs. D. K. Renuka Ekanayake Member, National Police Commission. 4. Mrs. Savithri Wijesekere Member, National Police Commission. 4A. Mr. G. Wickramage, Member, National Police Commission. 4B. Mr. K. Karunaharan, Member, National Police Commission. 5. Mr. B.A. Jeyanathan, Member, National Police Commission. 5A. Mr. Ashoka Wijethilaka Member, National Police Commission. 5B. Mr. M.P.P. Perera Member, National Police Commission. 5C. Mr. P. G. S. Gamini de Silva Member, National Police Commission. 6. Mr. Y. L. M. Zawahir Member, National Police Commission. 6A. Mr. S. Liyanagama Member, National Police Commission. 6B. Mr. D. Kapila Jayasuriya, Member, National Police Commission. 7. Mr. Tilak Collure Member, National Police Commission. 7A. Mr. A.S.P.S.P. Sanjeewa, Member, National Police Commission. 7B. Mr. A. A. M. Illiyas, Member, National Police Commission. 8. Mr. Frank De Silva, Member, National Police Commission. 8A. Mr. G. Jayakumar, Member, National Police Commission, 8B. Mr. N.S.M. Samsundeen Member, National Police Commission. 9. Mr. D. M. Saman Dissanayake Secretary, National Police Commission. 9A. Mr. Nishantha A. Weerasinghe Secretary, National Police Commission. 9B. Mrs. Samanthi Mihindukula, Secretary, National Police Commssion. 9C. Mrs. Thamara D. Perera, Secretary, National Police Commission. All of 2nd to 9th Respondents, BMICH Premises, Block 9, Colombo 07. 10. R.A.D.S.P. Ranasinghe 11. S.M.T.K.G. Bandara 12. U.S. Liyanapathirana 13. V. Amudan 14. U.M. Chaminda Kumara 15. D.M. Pathmasiri 16. W.A.D.N. Sanjeewa 17. U.K.J.A. Shantha 18. J.A.C. Jayalath 19. N.A.N.D. Nasagoda 20. T.U.N. Peiris 21. A.M.R. Polgolla 22. H.M. Senarathbandara 23. E.P. Chaminda Edirisooriya. All Care of Personal Division, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 24. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon. Chief Justice P. Padman Surasena 📄 Download
14 May 2026 SC/FR/330/2018 WITH SC/FR/332/2018 & SC/FR/334/2018
1. Yapa Mudiyanselage Laknath Chaminda Bandara Yapa No. 35/21C, Dharmashoka Mawatha, Aruppala, Kandy. 2. Ihala Wellala Gunawardana Arachchilage Upul Prashantha Gunawardene. “Nilmini Thavalankaya”, Ukuwela, Matale. 3. Tennakoon Mudiyanselage Thulitha, Sampath Tennakoon, Arambawada, Gurudola, Matugama. 4. Herath Mudiyanselage Egodawatte Manjula, Bandara Herath, No. 264, Kondadeniya, Katugasthota. 5. Weerasekara Mudiyanselage Angurukumbura, Walawwe Dammika Angurukumbura, No. 95/1, Weediyawatta, Udugampola. 6. Mudalihewage Saliya Priyantha. Sirisevana”,Badugama, Mathugama. 7. Senaka Indrajith Withanaarachchi No. 46B, Ihala Yagoda. Gampaha. 8. Weerasekara Bamunu Mudiyanselage Bandula Weerasekara “Namal” Musnawa, Bamunakotuwa. 9. Heva Wellalage Sujith Udayakumara, No. 63B, Navasivatha, Diwuldeniya. 10. Hagodahevage Sujeewa Kumara No. 51/12A, Subasiri Mawatha, Veluvanarama Road, Rawatawatta, Moratuwa. 11. Madduma Ralalage Pradeep Nalin Waduwadeniya. IP Plats, D.S. Fonseka Road, Thimbirigasyaya, Colombo 05. 12. Bamunusinghe Arachchige Don Nimal Ranjith Kumara No. 133/2, Kottawa Road, Mattegoda. 13. Samarawickrama Kodikarage Sarath No. 1575.189, New City Housing Scheme, 4th Lane, Horahena Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. 14. Malwathugoda Dissanayakage Chandana Jayalakshman Dissanayake, No. 183F, Madakotuwa Road, Walgammulla, Veyangoda. 15. Sooriyamudiyanselage Ushantha Chaminda Suriyakumara. No. 108, Kuswala, Raddolugama. 16. Manikpurage Ranjith Minipura No. 505/35, 2nd Lane, Hidallana, Ratnapura. 17. Kangara Mudiyanselage Asela Bandara Gunathilake, No. 69/1, Puliyadda, Thalathuoya. 18. Ekanayakage Nihal Pushpakumara Ekanayake. No. 229/C/1, Kandegedara, Nadagamuva, Kotugoda. 19. Thalwattehene Mohottalalage Dinesh Bandara Thalwatta. No. 10, Kapukanatta, Velagane, Maspotha. 20. Ekanayaka Mudiyanselage Nalaka Lasantha Bandara Ekanayaka. No. 28B, Dedunupitiya, Kandy. 21. Prasanna Nalaka Bandara Magedaragama, No. 30/A/2, E.A. Paulas Mawatha, Kandewatta, Galle. 22. Elmo Malcolm Pate. No. 182/16A, Galaudahena, Adurapotha, Kegalle. 23. Panagodage Mangala Panagoda, “Sisila” Kolamadiriya, Bandaragama. 24. Hettiarachchige Don Thusitha Upashantha Jayasekara. No. 79-/8/2 Tannekumbura, Kandy. 25. Bulathsinhalage Srinath Prasantha Perera No. 98, Government Houses, Hekiththa, Handala, Wattala. 26. Manimel Wadu Sujeewa Kumara No. 34, Kanda Mawatha, Ambalangoda. 27. Thirimunige Thavinda Samarathunga, No. 115 A, Morakele South, Ihala Kottaramulla. 28. Labutuwa Vidanaralalage Samantha Jayanath Bandara No. 136/76, Prannaloka Mawatha, Kawdana Road, Dehiwala. 29. Ilippili Arachchilage Arosha Jagath Bandara, No. 118/12, De Mel Road, Lakshapathiya, Moratuwa. PETITIONERS Vs. 1) C. D. Wickramarathne, Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 2) P.H. Manatunga Chairman, National Police Commission. 2A. K.W.E. Karalliyadde, Chairman, National Police Commission. 2B. S.C.S. Fernando Chairman, National Police Commission. 2C. Hon. Mr. E.W.M. Lalith Ekanayake Chairman, National Police Commission, 3) Siri Hettige Member, National Police Commission, 3A. Gamini Nawarathne Member, National Police Commission, 3B. S. Liyanagama Member, National Police Commission. 3C. Mrs. D.K.Renuka Ekanayake Member, National Police Commission, 4) Savithri Wijesekara, Member, National Police Commission. 4A. A.S.P.S.P. Sanjeeewa, Member, National Police Commission. 4B. Mr. K. Karunaharan, Member, National Police Commission. 5) Mr. Y. L. M. Zawahir Member, National Police Commission. 5A. Mr. N.S.M. Samsudeen Member, National Police Commission. 5B. P.G.S. Gamini de Silva, Member, National Police Commission AND OTHERS 1. Yapa Mudiyanselage Laknath Chaminda Bandara Yapa No. 35/21C, Dharmashoka Mawatha, Aruppala, Kandy. 2. Ihala Wellala Gunawardana Arachchilage Upul Prashantha Gunawardene. “Nilmini Thavalankaya”, Ukuwela, Matale. 3. Tennakoon Mudiyanselage Thulitha, Sampath Tennakoon, Arambawada, Gurudola, Matugama. 4. Herath Mudiyanselage Egodawatte Manjula, Bandara Herath, No. 264, Kondadeniya, Katugasthota. 5. Weerasekara Mudiyanselage Angurukumbura, Walawwe Dammika Angurukumbura, No. 95/1, Weediyawatta, Udugampola. 6. Mudalihewage Saliya Priyantha. Sirisevana”,Badugama, Mathugama. 7. Senaka Indrajith Withanaarachchi No. 46B, Ihala Yagoda. Gampaha. 8. Weerasekara Bamunu Mudiyanselage Bandula Weerasekara “Namal” Musnawa, Bamunakotuwa. 9. Heva Wellalage Sujith Udayakumara, No. 63B, Navasivatha, Diwuldeniya. 10. Hagodahevage Sujeewa Kumara No. 51/12A, Subasiri Mawatha, Veluvanarama Road, Rawatawatta, Moratuwa. 11. Madduma Ralalage Pradeep Nalin Waduwadeniya. IP Plats, D.S. Fonseka Road, Thimbirigasyaya, Colombo 05. 12. Bamunusinghe Arachchige Don Nimal Ranjith Kumara No. 133/2, Kottawa Road, Mattegoda. 13. Samarawickrama Kodikarage Sarath No. 1575.189, New City Housing Scheme, 4th Lane, Horahena Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. 14. Malwathugoda Dissanayakage Chandana Jayalakshman Dissanayake, No. 183F, Madakotuwa Road, Walgammulla, Veyangoda. 15. Sooriyamudiyanselage Ushantha Chaminda Suriyakumara. No. 108, Kuswala, Raddolugama. 16. Manikpurage Ranjith Minipura No. 505/35, 2nd Lane, Hidallana, Ratnapura. 17. Kangara Mudiyanselage Asela Bandara Gunathilake, No. 69/1, Puliyadda, Thalathuoya. 18. Ekanayakage Nihal Pushpakumara Ekanayake. No. 229/C/1, Kandegedara, Nadagamuva, Kotugoda. 19. Thalwattehene Mohottalalage Dinesh Bandara Thalwatta. No. 10, Kapukanatta, Velagane, Maspotha. 20. Ekanayaka Mudiyanselage Nalaka Lasantha Bandara Ekanayaka. No. 28B, Dedunupitiya, Kandy. 21. Prasanna Nalaka Bandara Magedaragama, No. 30/A/2, E.A. Paulas Mawatha, Kandewatta, Galle. 22. Elmo Malcolm Pate. No. 182/16A, Galaudahena, Adurapotha, Kegalle. 23. Panagodage Mangala Panagoda, “Sisila” Kolamadiriya, Bandaragama. 24. Hettiarachchige Don Thusitha Upashantha Jayasekara. No. 79-/8/2 Tannekumbura, Kandy. 25. Bulathsinhalage Srinath Prasantha Perera No. 98, Government Houses, Hekiththa, Handala, Wattala. 26. Manimel Wadu Sujeewa Kumara No. 34, Kanda Mawatha, Ambalangoda. 27. Thirimunige Thavinda Samarathunga, No. 115 A, Morakele South, Ihala Kottaramulla. 28. Labutuwa Vidanaralalage Samantha Jayanath Bandara No. 136/76, Prannaloka Mawatha, Kawdana Road, Dehiwala. 29. Ilippili Arachchilage Arosha Jagath Bandara, No. 118/12, De Mel Road, Lakshapathiya, Moratuwa. PETITIONERS Vs. 1) C. D. Wickramarathne, Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 2) P.H. Manatunga Chairman, National Police Commission. 2A. K.W.E. Karalliyadde, Chairman, National Police Commission. 2B. S.C.S. Fernando Chairman, National Police Commission. 2C. Hon. Mr. E.W.M. Lalith Ekanayake Chairman, National Police Commission, 3) Siri Hettige Member, National Police Commission, 3A. Gamini Nawarathne Member, National Police Commission, 3B. S. Liyanagama Member, National Police Commission. 3C. Mrs. D.K.Renuka Ekanayake Member, National Police Commission, 4) Savithri Wijesekara, Member, National Police Commission. 4A. A.S.P.S.P. Sanjeeewa, Member, National Police Commission. 4B. Mr. K. Karunaharan, Member, National Police Commission. 5) Mr. Y. L. M. Zawahir Member, National Police Commission. 5A. Mr. N.S.M. Samsudeen Member, National Police Commission. 5B. P.G.S. Gamini de Silva, Member, National Police Commission AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon. Chief Justice P. Padman Surasena 📄 Download
13 May 2026 SC/APPEAL/151/2023
1. Loku Bogahawattage David Sisila, Piladuwa Welletota, Palatuwa 1A. Bogahawaththage Chitra Rohini Manigamulla, Gothatuwa Nagoda SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFFAPPELLANT- PETITIONER Vs. 1. Hewa Lunuwilage Jayatissa Randeniyagewatta, Walgama, Matara 2. Vinodahewage Nandaseeli Randeniyagewatta Walgama, Matara 2A.Vinodahewage Chandima Sampath Kumara Randeniyagewatta Walgama, Matara 2B. Vinodahewage Nadeesha Sanjeewanie Randeniyagewatta Walgama, Matara 2C. Vinodahewage Diluka Thushantha Kumara Randeniyagewatta Walgama, Matara DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTRESPONDENTS 1. Loku Bogahawattage David Sisila, Piladuwa Welletota, Palatuwa 1A. Bogahawaththage Chitra Rohini Manigamulla, Gothatuwa Nagoda SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFFAPPELLANT- PETITIONER Vs. 1. Hewa Lunuwilage Jayatissa Randeniyagewatta, Walgama, Matara 2. Vinodahewage Nandaseeli Randeniyagewatta Walgama, Matara 2A.Vinodahewage Chandima Sampath Kumara Randeniyagewatta Walgama, Matara 2B. Vinodahewage Nadeesha Sanjeewanie Randeniyagewatta Walgama, Matara 2C. Vinodahewage Diluka Thushantha Kumara Randeniyagewatta Walgama, Matara DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTRESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne 📄 Download
13 May 2026 SC/APPEAL/42/2018
Jamuregoda Gamachchilage Siripala (Deceased) 7A. Dickwella Withanage Nandaseeli 7B. Jamuregoda Gamachchilage Achala Thusari, 7C. Jamuregoda Gamachchilage Pasan Kalhara, All of No. 32, Madiwala, Kotte. 7th Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Labugamage Diyonis Perera (Deceased) 1A. Labugamage Sirimathie Perera 1B. Labugamage Rupadewa Nimala Perera 1C. Liyanage Bastiyan Perera All of No. 67/7, Sigera Mawatha, Madiwala, Kotte. 2. Labugamage Karolis Perera, No. 506, Thalapathpitiya Road, Madiwala, Kotte. 3. Labugamage Kristina Perera (Deceased) 3A. Liyanage Don Indradasa No. 513/1, halapathpitiya Road, Madiwala, Kotte. 4. Labugamage Selo Perera, No. 516, Thalapathpitiya Road, Madiwala, Kotte. 5. Labugamage Sisiliyana Perera, No. 33/3, Sigara Road, Madiwala, Kotte. 6. Labugamage Charlotte Perera, Sigara Road, Madiwala, Kotte. 8. Labugamage Somalatha Perera, No. 324, Thalapathpitiya Road, Madiwala, Kotte. 9. Upul Paranawithana, No. 145, Ranpath Road, Ethul Kotte. 10. Mangala Senaratne (Deceased) 10A. Nagahallage Dona Premalatha Silva, No. 16/10, Praja Road, Madiwala, Kotte. 11. Suraweera Arachchige Don Idinona, No. 16/10, Praja Road, Madiwala, Kotte. 12. W.N.I.S.P. Rohan Fernando (Deceased) 12A. W.N.A Niransha Dewmal Fernando, No. 20/2, Praja Road, Madiwala, Kotte. And Others Jamuregoda Gamachchilage Siripala (Deceased) 7A. Dickwella Withanage Nandaseeli 7B. Jamuregoda Gamachchilage Achala Thusari, 7C. Jamuregoda Gamachchilage Pasan Kalhara, All of No. 32, Madiwala, Kotte. 7th Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Labugamage Diyonis Perera (Deceased) 1A. Labugamage Sirimathie Perera 1B. Labugamage Rupadewa Nimala Perera 1C. Liyanage Bastiyan Perera All of No. 67/7, Sigera Mawatha, Madiwala, Kotte. 2. Labugamage Karolis Perera, No. 506, Thalapathpitiya Road, Madiwala, Kotte. 3. Labugamage Kristina Perera (Deceased) 3A. Liyanage Don Indradasa No. 513/1, halapathpitiya Road, Madiwala, Kotte. 4. Labugamage Selo Perera, No. 516, Thalapathpitiya Road, Madiwala, Kotte. 5. Labugamage Sisiliyana Perera, No. 33/3, Sigara Road, Madiwala, Kotte. 6. Labugamage Charlotte Perera, Sigara Road, Madiwala, Kotte. 8. Labugamage Somalatha Perera, No. 324, Thalapathpitiya Road, Madiwala, Kotte. 9. Upul Paranawithana, No. 145, Ranpath Road, Ethul Kotte. 10. Mangala Senaratne (Deceased) 10A. Nagahallage Dona Premalatha Silva, No. 16/10, Praja Road, Madiwala, Kotte. 11. Suraweera Arachchige Don Idinona, No. 16/10, Praja Road, Madiwala, Kotte. 12. W.N.I.S.P. Rohan Fernando (Deceased) 12A. W.N.A Niransha Dewmal Fernando, No. 20/2, Praja Road, Madiwala, Kotte. And Others
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
12 May 2026 SC/HC CALA/247/2024
Peoples Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 1st DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. Chamila Dilanthi Ranasinghe, No. 29, Jambugasmulla Road, Nugegoda. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT Mutu Hennadige Saman Wijesekara, No. 190/3, Peter De Perera Mawatha, Dutugemunu Street, Kohuwala. 2nd DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT Peoples Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 1st DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. Chamila Dilanthi Ranasinghe, No. 29, Jambugasmulla Road, Nugegoda. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT Mutu Hennadige Saman Wijesekara, No. 190/3, Peter De Perera Mawatha, Dutugemunu Street, Kohuwala. 2nd DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon 📄 Download
11 May 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/34/2023
Pujitha Prabath Weerawardhana, No. 385, Galle Road, Kosgoda. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Ocean Rich Seafood (Pvt) Ltd, No. 96, St. Andrews Road, Colombo 15. Current Address: No. 83/11, Wekanda Road, Colombo 02. 2. Jason Chen, No. 96, St. Andrews Road, Colombo 15. Current Address: No. 92A, Rodrigo Place, Mattakkuliya, Colombo 15. 3. David Chen, No. 96, St. Andrews Road, Colombo 15. Previous Address: No. 92A, Rodrigo Place, Mattakkuliya, Colombo 15. Current Address: No. 622, 10A, Aluthmawatha, Colombo 15. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTS Pujitha Prabath Weerawardhana, No. 385, Galle Road, Kosgoda. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Ocean Rich Seafood (Pvt) Ltd, No. 96, St. Andrews Road, Colombo 15. Current Address: No. 83/11, Wekanda Road, Colombo 02. 2. Jason Chen, No. 96, St. Andrews Road, Colombo 15. Current Address: No. 92A, Rodrigo Place, Mattakkuliya, Colombo 15. 3. David Chen, No. 96, St. Andrews Road, Colombo 15. Previous Address: No. 92A, Rodrigo Place, Mattakkuliya, Colombo 15. Current Address: No. 622, 10A, Aluthmawatha, Colombo 15. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon 📄 Download
11 May 2026 SC/APPEAL/72/2024
1. S.S.A.U.S.AC. Udayar No. G13, Getaberiya, Aranayake. 2. S.S.A.U.S. Razik Udayar No. G13, Getaberiya, Aranayake. PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS Vs. 1. Mohamed Subair Mohamed Kiyas Marikkar No. 325, Dippitiya, Aranayake. 2. People’s Bank No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 3. Inquiring Officer/Senior Legal Officer, Land Redemption Department, People’s Bank, No. 220, Deans Road, Colombo 10. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS 1. S.S.A.U.S.AC. Udayar No. G13, Getaberiya, Aranayake. 2. S.S.A.U.S. Razik Udayar No. G13, Getaberiya, Aranayake. PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS Vs. 1. Mohamed Subair Mohamed Kiyas Marikkar No. 325, Dippitiya, Aranayake. 2. People’s Bank No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 3. Inquiring Officer/Senior Legal Officer, Land Redemption Department, People’s Bank, No. 220, Deans Road, Colombo 10. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna 📄 Download
11 May 2026 SC/APPEAL/71/2024
1. S.S.A.U.S.A.C. Udayar No. G13, Getaberiya, Aranayake. 2. S.S.A.U.S. Razik Udayar No. G13, Getaberiya, Aranayake. PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS Vs. 1. Mohamed Subair Mohamed Kiyas Marikkar No. 325, Dippitiya, Aranayake. 2. People’s Bank No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 3. Inquiring Officer/Senior Legal Officer, Land Redemption Department, People’s Bank, No. 220, Deans Road, Colombo 10. 4. The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 12. 5. Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksha Minister of Finance Lotus Road, Colombo 01. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS 1. S.S.A.U.S.A.C. Udayar No. G13, Getaberiya, Aranayake. 2. S.S.A.U.S. Razik Udayar No. G13, Getaberiya, Aranayake. PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS Vs. 1. Mohamed Subair Mohamed Kiyas Marikkar No. 325, Dippitiya, Aranayake. 2. People’s Bank No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 3. Inquiring Officer/Senior Legal Officer, Land Redemption Department, People’s Bank, No. 220, Deans Road, Colombo 10. 4. The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 12. 5. Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksha Minister of Finance Lotus Road, Colombo 01. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna 📄 Download
08 May 2026 SC/APPEAL/41/2022
Mohottige Ajith Anuruddha No: 312/68, Madampitiya Road, Colombo 14. (Presently at Welikada Remand Prison) Accused-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Honourable Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent -Respondent Mohottige Ajith Anuruddha No: 312/68, Madampitiya Road, Colombo 14. (Presently at Welikada Remand Prison) Accused-Appellant-Petitioner Vs. Honourable Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent -Respondent
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
08 May 2026 SC/APPEAL/13/2023
Wedage Ranjani, Samangama, Karangoda, Ratnapura. Accused - Appellant - Petitioner Vs. Officer-in-charge, Criminal Investigation Unit, Police Station, Ratnapura. Complainant – Respondent- Respondent Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent. Wedage Ranjani, Samangama, Karangoda, Ratnapura. Accused - Appellant - Petitioner Vs. Officer-in-charge, Criminal Investigation Unit, Police Station, Ratnapura. Complainant – Respondent- Respondent Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent.
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
08 May 2026 SC/FR/15/2018
1. Mahamalage Nidush Nirantha Fernando No. 20, Sumanakusum Gama, Marawila 2. Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Sujith Priyankara Kumara Vilgamdematawa, Gonagama, Kurunegala PETITIONERS Vs. 1. S. R. D. Priyantha Officer in Charge Police Station Marawila. 2. Gayan Pushpakumara Sub Inspector of Police Police Station Marawila. 3. Kaushitha Premarathne Sub Inspector of Police Police Station Marawila. 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police DIG Office Puttalam District. 5. Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters Colombo 01. 6. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS 1. Mahamalage Nidush Nirantha Fernando No. 20, Sumanakusum Gama, Marawila 2. Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Sujith Priyankara Kumara Vilgamdematawa, Gonagama, Kurunegala PETITIONERS Vs. 1. S. R. D. Priyantha Officer in Charge Police Station Marawila. 2. Gayan Pushpakumara Sub Inspector of Police Police Station Marawila. 3. Kaushitha Premarathne Sub Inspector of Police Police Station Marawila. 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police DIG Office Puttalam District. 5. Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters Colombo 01. 6. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna 📄 Download
08 May 2026 SC/FR/81/2021
Dr. W. A. M. Udari L. Abeyasinghe 221/A, Wijaya Mawatha, Thalahena, Malabe. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Prof. W. M. Thilakaratne 132/9, Upper Augustawatta, Uda Peradeniya, Kandy. 2. Prof. Upul B. Dissanayake Vice Chancellor, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 3. Prof. S. H. P. Parakrama Karunaratne Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 4. Prof. D. K. N. G. Pushpakumara Dean, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 5. Dr. M. A. J. C. Marasinghe Dean, Faculty of Allied Health Science, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 6. Prof. O. G. Dayaratna Banda Dean, Faculty of Arts, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 7. Dr. J. A. V. P. Jayasinghe Dean, Faculty of Dental Science, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 8. Prof. G. B. Herath Dean, Faculty of Engineering, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 9. Prof. E. M. A. S. B. Ekanayake Dean, Faculty of Management, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 10. Prof. A. S. Abeygunawardena Dean, Faculty of Medicine, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 11. Prof. S. R. Kodituwakku Dean, Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 12. Dr. D. M. S. Munasinghe Dean, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine & Animal Science, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 13. Prof. R. G. S. C. Rajapakse, Department of Molecular Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 14. Prof. C. Wickramagamage, Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 15. Most Ven Niyangoda Vijithasiri Council Member, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 16. Mr. G. S. J. Dissanayake Council Member, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 17. Mr. Saman Ratwatte, Council Member, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. And Others Dr. W. A. M. Udari L. Abeyasinghe 221/A, Wijaya Mawatha, Thalahena, Malabe. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Prof. W. M. Thilakaratne 132/9, Upper Augustawatta, Uda Peradeniya, Kandy. 2. Prof. Upul B. Dissanayake Vice Chancellor, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 3. Prof. S. H. P. Parakrama Karunaratne Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 4. Prof. D. K. N. G. Pushpakumara Dean, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 5. Dr. M. A. J. C. Marasinghe Dean, Faculty of Allied Health Science, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 6. Prof. O. G. Dayaratna Banda Dean, Faculty of Arts, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 7. Dr. J. A. V. P. Jayasinghe Dean, Faculty of Dental Science, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 8. Prof. G. B. Herath Dean, Faculty of Engineering, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 9. Prof. E. M. A. S. B. Ekanayake Dean, Faculty of Management, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 10. Prof. A. S. Abeygunawardena Dean, Faculty of Medicine, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 11. Prof. S. R. Kodituwakku Dean, Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 12. Dr. D. M. S. Munasinghe Dean, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine & Animal Science, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 13. Prof. R. G. S. C. Rajapakse, Department of Molecular Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 14. Prof. C. Wickramagamage, Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 15. Most Ven Niyangoda Vijithasiri Council Member, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 16. Mr. G. S. J. Dissanayake Council Member, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. 17. Mr. Saman Ratwatte, Council Member, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya. And Others
⚖ Hon. Justice Janak De Silva 📄 Download
08 May 2026 SC/FR/171/2022
W.A.D. Ruwan Weththasingha No. 12A/1, Bendaluva, Parakaduwa. PETITIONER Vs. 1. M.G.C. Sooriyabandara Director-General No. 811/A, Jayanthipura Road, Battaramulla. 1(a) M. S. L. R. P. Marasinghe Director- General (Acting) No. 811/A, Jayanthipura Road, Battaramulla. 2. W.A.A.D.U. Indrajith Assistant Director - Uva Department of Wildlife Conservation No. 811/A, Jayanthipura Road, Battaramulla. 3. C. Jayasinghe Director- Finance Department of Wildlife Conservation No. 811/A, Jayanthipura Road, Battaramulla. 3(a) P. G. S Priyantha Director- Finance Department of Wildlife Conservation No. 811/A, Jayanthipura Road, Battaramulla. 4. A.D.Y. Anandani Director- Administration Department of Wildlife Conservation No. 811/A, Jayanthipura Road, Battaramulla. 5. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS W.A.D. Ruwan Weththasingha No. 12A/1, Bendaluva, Parakaduwa. PETITIONER Vs. 1. M.G.C. Sooriyabandara Director-General No. 811/A, Jayanthipura Road, Battaramulla. 1(a) M. S. L. R. P. Marasinghe Director- General (Acting) No. 811/A, Jayanthipura Road, Battaramulla. 2. W.A.A.D.U. Indrajith Assistant Director - Uva Department of Wildlife Conservation No. 811/A, Jayanthipura Road, Battaramulla. 3. C. Jayasinghe Director- Finance Department of Wildlife Conservation No. 811/A, Jayanthipura Road, Battaramulla. 3(a) P. G. S Priyantha Director- Finance Department of Wildlife Conservation No. 811/A, Jayanthipura Road, Battaramulla. 4. A.D.Y. Anandani Director- Administration Department of Wildlife Conservation No. 811/A, Jayanthipura Road, Battaramulla. 5. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna 📄 Download
08 May 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/17/2020
John Keells Office Automation (Pvt) Ltd, No. 90, Union Place, Colombo 02. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. China Geo Engineering Corporation, Building B, No. 92, Xiangshan South Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China. And having a place of business established in Sri Lanka at, No. 140/4-1/1, W.A. de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 06. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT John Keells Office Automation (Pvt) Ltd, No. 90, Union Place, Colombo 02. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. China Geo Engineering Corporation, Building B, No. 92, Xiangshan South Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China. And having a place of business established in Sri Lanka at, No. 140/4-1/1, W.A. de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 06. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon 📄 Download
08 May 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/69/2012
Somerville & Company Ltd, P.O. Box 146, No. 137, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 12. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT Vs. People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mw, Colombo 02. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT Somerville & Company Ltd, P.O. Box 146, No. 137, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 12. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT Vs. People’s Bank, No. 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mw, Colombo 02. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Janak De Silva 📄 Download
07 May 2026 SC/FR/7/2023
1. Ahamed Lebbe Mohamed Saleem, No.96, Kalyana Road Sainthamaruthu 11. 2. Abdul Raheem Mohamed Aseem, No.27, Hospital Road Sainthamaruthu 09. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Nimal G. Punchihewa, Chairman, Elections Commission. 1A. R.M.A.L. Rathnayake, Chairman, Elections Commission. 2. S.B. Diwarathne, Member, Elections Commission. 2A. M.A. Pathmasiri Chandrawansha, Perera, Member, Elections Commission. 3. M.M. Mohamed, Member, Elections Commission. 3A. Ameer Mohammed Faiz, Member, Elections Commission. 4. K.P.P. Pathirana, Member, Elections Commission. 4A. Anusuya Shanmuganathan, Member, Elections Commission. 5. P.S.M. Charles, Member, Elections Commission. 5A. Lakshman Dissanayake, Member, Elections Commission. 6. Saman Sri Ratnayake, Commissioner-General of Elections. 1st to 6th Respondents all at the Elections Commission of Sri Lanka, Elections Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 7. Mahinda Deshapriya, Chairman, National Delimitation Committee on Demarcation of Wards for Local Authorities. 8. Jayalath Dissanayake, Member, National Delimitation Committee on Demarcation of Wards for Local Authorities. 9. W.M.M.R. Adikari, National Delimitation Committee on Demarcation of Wards for Local Authorities. 10. K. Thavalingam, National Delimitation Committee on Demarcation of Wards for Local Authorities. 11. I.A. Hameed, National Delimitation Committee on Demarcation of Wards for Local Authorities. 7th to 11th Respondents all at the National Delimitation Committee on Demarcation of Wards for Local Authorities, Surveyor General’s Office Building, Colombo 05. 12. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena, Prime Minister, Minister of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Ministry of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 12A.Hon. A.H.M.H Abayarathna, Minister of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Ministry of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 13. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 14. J.M.A. Douglas, Ampara District Returning Officer, District Secretary, District Secretariat, Ampara. 14A.Chinthaka Abeywardena, Ampara District Returning Officer, District Secretary, District Secretariat, Ampara. 15. A.M.K.S. Aththanayake, Ampara District Assistant Returning Officer, Assistant Commissioner of Elections, District Elections Office, Ampara. RESPONDENTS 17. Pakeerthamby Uthumalebhai, No.80 Jumma Mosque Road, Kalmunai Town. 18. Abdul Cader Mohamed Althaf, 358/A, Makkamadi Road, Maruthamunai 03. ADDED RESPONDENTS 1. Ahamed Lebbe Mohamed Saleem, No.96, Kalyana Road Sainthamaruthu 11. 2. Abdul Raheem Mohamed Aseem, No.27, Hospital Road Sainthamaruthu 09. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Nimal G. Punchihewa, Chairman, Elections Commission. 1A. R.M.A.L. Rathnayake, Chairman, Elections Commission. 2. S.B. Diwarathne, Member, Elections Commission. 2A. M.A. Pathmasiri Chandrawansha, Perera, Member, Elections Commission. 3. M.M. Mohamed, Member, Elections Commission. 3A. Ameer Mohammed Faiz, Member, Elections Commission. 4. K.P.P. Pathirana, Member, Elections Commission. 4A. Anusuya Shanmuganathan, Member, Elections Commission. 5. P.S.M. Charles, Member, Elections Commission. 5A. Lakshman Dissanayake, Member, Elections Commission. 6. Saman Sri Ratnayake, Commissioner-General of Elections. 1st to 6th Respondents all at the Elections Commission of Sri Lanka, Elections Secretariat, Sarana Mawatha, Rajagiriya. 7. Mahinda Deshapriya, Chairman, National Delimitation Committee on Demarcation of Wards for Local Authorities. 8. Jayalath Dissanayake, Member, National Delimitation Committee on Demarcation of Wards for Local Authorities. 9. W.M.M.R. Adikari, National Delimitation Committee on Demarcation of Wards for Local Authorities. 10. K. Thavalingam, National Delimitation Committee on Demarcation of Wards for Local Authorities. 11. I.A. Hameed, National Delimitation Committee on Demarcation of Wards for Local Authorities. 7th to 11th Respondents all at the National Delimitation Committee on Demarcation of Wards for Local Authorities, Surveyor General’s Office Building, Colombo 05. 12. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena, Prime Minister, Minister of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Ministry of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 12A.Hon. A.H.M.H Abayarathna, Minister of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Ministry of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 13. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 14. J.M.A. Douglas, Ampara District Returning Officer, District Secretary, District Secretariat, Ampara. 14A.Chinthaka Abeywardena, Ampara District Returning Officer, District Secretary, District Secretariat, Ampara. 15. A.M.K.S. Aththanayake, Ampara District Assistant Returning Officer, Assistant Commissioner of Elections, District Elections Office, Ampara. RESPONDENTS 17. Pakeerthamby Uthumalebhai, No.80 Jumma Mosque Road, Kalmunai Town. 18. Abdul Cader Mohamed Althaf, 358/A, Makkamadi Road, Maruthamunai 03. ADDED RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Janak De Silva In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Article 17 read along with Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 📄 Download
07 May 2026 SC/APPEAL/77/2017
Galabada Kankanamge Jinadasa No.265/A, High Level Road, Colombo 5. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Galabada Kankanamge Lekha Lasanthi No.2A, Balapokuna Road, Colombo 06 Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent. Galabada Kankanamge Jinadasa No.265/A, High Level Road, Colombo 5. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Galabada Kankanamge Lekha Lasanthi No.2A, Balapokuna Road, Colombo 06 Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent.
⚖ Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli 📄 Download
07 May 2026 SC/APPEAL/5/2022
Upali Jayasinghe, 716, Baseline Road, Colombo 09. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT -Vs- Mahanuwara Multipurpose Co - Operative Society Ltd., 15, Kumara Vidiya, Kandy. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT Upali Jayasinghe, 716, Baseline Road, Colombo 09. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT -Vs- Mahanuwara Multipurpose Co - Operative Society Ltd., 15, Kumara Vidiya, Kandy. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
07 May 2026 SC/APPEAL/131/2013
Gintota Plywood Manufacturers (Pvt) Limited, 282 C, Galle Road, Colombo 03. PETITIONER – APPELLANT -Vs- 1. Upali Wijeweera, Commissioner of Labour, Department of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 2. H.R.L. Sugathadasa, Assistant Commissioner of Labour, District Labour Office, Galle. 3. A.N.W. Perera, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Legal Division, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 4. V.B.T.K. Weerasinghe, Commissioner of Labour, Department of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 5. W. Punchihewa, Assistant Commissioner of Labour, District Labour Office, Galle. 6. D.M. Karunarathna, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Legal Division, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. RESPONDENT – RESPONDENTS Gintota Plywood Manufacturers (Pvt) Limited, 282 C, Galle Road, Colombo 03. PETITIONER – APPELLANT -Vs- 1. Upali Wijeweera, Commissioner of Labour, Department of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 2. H.R.L. Sugathadasa, Assistant Commissioner of Labour, District Labour Office, Galle. 3. A.N.W. Perera, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Legal Division, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 4. V.B.T.K. Weerasinghe, Commissioner of Labour, Department of Labour, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. 5. W. Punchihewa, Assistant Commissioner of Labour, District Labour Office, Galle. 6. D.M. Karunarathna, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Legal Division, Labour Secretariat, Narahenpita, Colombo 05. RESPONDENT – RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
07 May 2026 SC/APPEAL/73/2025
Ven. Galpothukande Devinda Thero, Sri Pathirajaramaya, Pathiraja Pedesa, Uragasmanhandiya. 2nd DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- APPELLANT Vs. Ven. Madakumbure Sudassana Thero, Sri Bodhirajaramaya, Madakumbura, Karandeniya. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT- RESPONDENT Ven. Kosgoda Mahinda Thero, (Deceased) Siriwijaya Bodhirajaramaya, Bogahapitiya, Ahungalla. 1st DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT Ven. Galpothukande Devinda Thero, Sri Pathirajaramaya, Pathiraja Pedesa, Uragasmanhandiya. 2nd DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- APPELLANT Vs. Ven. Madakumbure Sudassana Thero, Sri Bodhirajaramaya, Madakumbura, Karandeniya. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT- RESPONDENT Ven. Kosgoda Mahinda Thero, (Deceased) Siriwijaya Bodhirajaramaya, Bogahapitiya, Ahungalla. 1st DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon 📄 Download
07 May 2026 SC/FR/22/2018
1. W.M.D.B. Abeyratne, No.11, P.C.# 20,000, Uduwella Road, Ampitiya. Kandy. Petitioner Vs. 1. Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. Ceased to hold office 2. S.S.B.D.G. Jayawardena, Ceased to hold office 2A. D.T. Kingsley Bernard, 2B. Gamini Senanayake Chairman, Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3. Jayaratna Dias Samarasinghe Former Chairman, Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. Ceased to hold office 4. J.D.H. Wijewardena, 4A. Prabath Wimal Kumara Secretary/Director, Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. 5. W.I. Prabath Wimal Kumara Former Secretary/Director, Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. Ceased to hold Office 6. D.V. Bnadulasena, Ceased to hold Office 7. K. Samarasinghe, Ceased to hold Office 8. I.S.B. Abeysinghe, Ceased to hold Office 9. R.R.A. Wijekoon, D.M.J.K. Dissanayake Ceased to hold Office 10. S.S.P Silva, Ceased to hold Office 11. N.D.R.Weerawardena, 12. Palitha Kithsiri, Ceased to hold Office 13. N.S.H. Dalpadadu Ceased to hold Office 14. Simalee Fernando, Ceased to hold Office 15. P.C. Maduwanthi, 15A. K. Hettiarachchi, Ceased to hold Office 15B. Kapila Senanayake, 15C. W.M.W.Weerakoon, Ceased to hold Office 15D. Gamini Senanayake, 15E. G.A. Gunawardena, Ceased to hold Office 15F. A. M. Mubarak, Ceased to hold Office 16. W. Madawanarachchi, 16F1. S.H.S. Ajantha De Silva, 16F2. K.M.A. Bandara, 16F3. J.M.T. Jayasundara, 16F4. P.D.S.H. Kumara, 16F5. Chitthral Jayawarna, 6th to 16F5 all of , Directors, Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. 17. V. KeerthiViswanatha, Inquiry Officer, “Mihira”, Wawana Watta Para, Mampe, Piliyandala. 18. K.P. Rohana Alwis, Preliminary Inquiry Officer, No.302/2, Kaduwela Road, Malabe. 19. A.R. Ariyaratna, Former Secretary/Director, Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. 20. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents 1. W.M.D.B. Abeyratne, No.11, P.C.# 20,000, Uduwella Road, Ampitiya. Kandy. Petitioner Vs. 1. Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. Ceased to hold office 2. S.S.B.D.G. Jayawardena, Ceased to hold office 2A. D.T. Kingsley Bernard, 2B. Gamini Senanayake Chairman, Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3. Jayaratna Dias Samarasinghe Former Chairman, Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. Ceased to hold office 4. J.D.H. Wijewardena, 4A. Prabath Wimal Kumara Secretary/Director, Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. 5. W.I. Prabath Wimal Kumara Former Secretary/Director, Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. Ceased to hold Office 6. D.V. Bnadulasena, Ceased to hold Office 7. K. Samarasinghe, Ceased to hold Office 8. I.S.B. Abeysinghe, Ceased to hold Office 9. R.R.A. Wijekoon, D.M.J.K. Dissanayake Ceased to hold Office 10. S.S.P Silva, Ceased to hold Office 11. N.D.R.Weerawardena, 12. Palitha Kithsiri, Ceased to hold Office 13. N.S.H. Dalpadadu Ceased to hold Office 14. Simalee Fernando, Ceased to hold Office 15. P.C. Maduwanthi, 15A. K. Hettiarachchi, Ceased to hold Office 15B. Kapila Senanayake, 15C. W.M.W.Weerakoon, Ceased to hold Office 15D. Gamini Senanayake, 15E. G.A. Gunawardena, Ceased to hold Office 15F. A. M. Mubarak, Ceased to hold Office 16. W. Madawanarachchi, 16F1. S.H.S. Ajantha De Silva, 16F2. K.M.A. Bandara, 16F3. J.M.T. Jayasundara, 16F4. P.D.S.H. Kumara, 16F5. Chitthral Jayawarna, 6th to 16F5 all of , Directors, Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. 17. V. KeerthiViswanatha, Inquiry Officer, “Mihira”, Wawana Watta Para, Mampe, Piliyandala. 18. K.P. Rohana Alwis, Preliminary Inquiry Officer, No.302/2, Kaduwela Road, Malabe. 19. A.R. Ariyaratna, Former Secretary/Director, Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. 20. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli 📄 Download
07 May 2026 SC/FR/160/2016
1. W.M.D.B. Abeyratne, No.11,P.C. 20,000, Uduwella Road, Ampitiya. Kandy. Petitioner Vs. 1. Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. Ceased to hold office 2. S.S.B.D.G. Jayawardena, Ceased to hold office 2A. D.T. Kingsley Bernard, 2B. Gamini Senanayake Chairman, Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3. Jayaratna Dias Samarasinghe Former Chairman, Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. Ceased to hold office 4. N.D.R. Weerasinghe Ceased to hold office 5. A. P.Heenkenda, Ceased to hold office 6. H.G. Sumanasinghe Ceased to hold Office 7. K. Samarasinghe, Ceased to hold Office 8. N.S.H. Dalpadadu Ceased to hold Office 9. D.M.J.K. Dissanayake Ceased to hold Office 10. D.V. Bnadulasena, Ceased to hold Office 11. A.R. Ariyaratna, Ceased to hold Office 12. Rizvi Zaheed, Ceased to hold Office 13. R.P.R. Amarasinghe, Ceased to hold Office 14. Priyantha Ratnayake, 14A. Prabath Wimal Kumara 14A1. S.H.S. Ajantha De Silva, 14A2 H.M.P.Kithsiri 14A3. W.M.W.Weerakoon, 14A4. G.A. Gunawardena, 14A5. K.M.A. Bandara, 14A6. L.S.K.Hettiarachchi 14A7. J.M.T. Jayasundara, 14A8. P.D.S.H. Kumara, 14A9. Chitthral Jayawarna, 4th to 14A9, Directors Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. Ceased to hold Office 15B. B. Wijayaratne, 15A. Sumedha Perera Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Govijana Mandiriya, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 16. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents 1. W.M.D.B. Abeyratne, No.11,P.C. 20,000, Uduwella Road, Ampitiya. Kandy. Petitioner Vs. 1. Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. Ceased to hold office 2. S.S.B.D.G. Jayawardena, Ceased to hold office 2A. D.T. Kingsley Bernard, 2B. Gamini Senanayake Chairman, Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3. Jayaratna Dias Samarasinghe Former Chairman, Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. Ceased to hold office 4. N.D.R. Weerasinghe Ceased to hold office 5. A. P.Heenkenda, Ceased to hold office 6. H.G. Sumanasinghe Ceased to hold Office 7. K. Samarasinghe, Ceased to hold Office 8. N.S.H. Dalpadadu Ceased to hold Office 9. D.M.J.K. Dissanayake Ceased to hold Office 10. D.V. Bnadulasena, Ceased to hold Office 11. A.R. Ariyaratna, Ceased to hold Office 12. Rizvi Zaheed, Ceased to hold Office 13. R.P.R. Amarasinghe, Ceased to hold Office 14. Priyantha Ratnayake, 14A. Prabath Wimal Kumara 14A1. S.H.S. Ajantha De Silva, 14A2 H.M.P.Kithsiri 14A3. W.M.W.Weerakoon, 14A4. G.A. Gunawardena, 14A5. K.M.A. Bandara, 14A6. L.S.K.Hettiarachchi 14A7. J.M.T. Jayasundara, 14A8. P.D.S.H. Kumara, 14A9. Chitthral Jayawarna, 4th to 14A9, Directors Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy, 114/9, Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 07. Ceased to hold Office 15B. B. Wijayaratne, 15A. Sumedha Perera Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Govijana Mandiriya, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 16. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli 📄 Download
06 May 2026 SC/FR/351/2022
1. Centre for the Environmental Justice (Gte) Ltd., No. 20A, Kuruppu Road, Colombo 08. 2. Withanage Don Hemantha Ranjith Sisira Kumara, Director and Senior Advisor, Centre for Environmental Justice, No. 20A, Kuruppu Road, Colombo 08. 3. Pathragoda Kankanamge Dilena, Executive Director, Centre for Environmental Justice, No. 20A, Kuruppu Road, Colombo 08. Petitioners Vs. 1. Director General of Wildlife Conservation, Department of Wildlife Conservation, No. 811A, Jayanthipura, Battaramulla. 2. Central Environmental Authority, No. 104, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mw., Battaramulla. 2A. Hemantha Jayasinghe, Director General, Central Environmental Authority, No. 104, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mw., Battaramulla. 3. Conservator General of Forests Department of Forest Conservation, Sampathpaya, No. 82, Rajamalwatte Road, Sri Jayawardanepura Kotte. 4. Commissioner of Buddhist Affairs, Department of Buddhist Affairs, Dahampaya, No. 135, Srimath Anagarika Dharmapala Mw., Colombo 07. 5. Divisional Secretary, Galgamuwa-Nikawewa Road, Ehetuwewa. 6. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01 7. Director General, Department of Archaeology, Sir Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 07. 8. North Western Provincial Environmental Authority (NWPEA), 1 st Floor, Provincial Office Complex, Kurunegala. 9. Chairman, Ceylon Electricity Board, 50, Sri Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 10.Ven. Walathwawe Rahula Thero, Chief Incumbent, Nakolagane Purana Rajamaha Viharaya, Vijaya Sri Sumangaramaya, Ataragalla, Galgamuwa 11.Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents 1. Centre for the Environmental Justice (Gte) Ltd., No. 20A, Kuruppu Road, Colombo 08. 2. Withanage Don Hemantha Ranjith Sisira Kumara, Director and Senior Advisor, Centre for Environmental Justice, No. 20A, Kuruppu Road, Colombo 08. 3. Pathragoda Kankanamge Dilena, Executive Director, Centre for Environmental Justice, No. 20A, Kuruppu Road, Colombo 08. Petitioners Vs. 1. Director General of Wildlife Conservation, Department of Wildlife Conservation, No. 811A, Jayanthipura, Battaramulla. 2. Central Environmental Authority, No. 104, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mw., Battaramulla. 2A. Hemantha Jayasinghe, Director General, Central Environmental Authority, No. 104, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mw., Battaramulla. 3. Conservator General of Forests Department of Forest Conservation, Sampathpaya, No. 82, Rajamalwatte Road, Sri Jayawardanepura Kotte. 4. Commissioner of Buddhist Affairs, Department of Buddhist Affairs, Dahampaya, No. 135, Srimath Anagarika Dharmapala Mw., Colombo 07. 5. Divisional Secretary, Galgamuwa-Nikawewa Road, Ehetuwewa. 6. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01 7. Director General, Department of Archaeology, Sir Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 07. 8. North Western Provincial Environmental Authority (NWPEA), 1 st Floor, Provincial Office Complex, Kurunegala. 9. Chairman, Ceylon Electricity Board, 50, Sri Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 10.Ven. Walathwawe Rahula Thero, Chief Incumbent, Nakolagane Purana Rajamaha Viharaya, Vijaya Sri Sumangaramaya, Ataragalla, Galgamuwa 11.Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Janak De Silva Page 1 of 51 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 1. Centre for the Environmental Justice (Gte) Ltd., No. 20A, Kuruppu Road, Colombo 08. S.C.F.R. Application No. 351/2022 2. Withanage Don Hemantha Ranjith Sisira Kumara, Director and Senior Advisor, Centre for Environmental Justice, No. 20A, Kuruppu Road, Colombo 08. 3. Pathragoda Kankanamge Dilena, Executive Director, Centre for Environmental Justice, No. 20A, Kuruppu Road, Colombo 08. Petitioners Vs. 1. Director General of Wildlife Conservation, Department of Wildlife Conservation, No. 811A, Jayanthipura, Battaramulla. 2. Central Environmental Authority, No. 104, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mw., Battaramulla. 2A. Hemantha Jayasinghe, Director General, Central Environmental Authority, No. 104, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mw., Battaramulla. 3. Conservator General of Forests Department of Forest Conservation, Sampathpaya, No. 82, Rajamalwatte Road, Sri Jayawardanepura Kotte. 4. Commissioner of Buddhist Affairs, Department of Buddhist Affairs, Dahampaya, No. 135, Srimath Anagarika Dharmapala Mw., Colombo 07. 5. Divisional Secretary, Galgamuwa-Nikawewa Road, Ehetuwewa. 6. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. Page 2 of 51 7. Director General, Department of Archaeology, Sir Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 07. 8. North Western Provincial Environmental Authority (NWPEA), 1 st Floor, Provincial Office Complex, Kurunegala. 9. Chairman, Ceylon Electricity Board, 50, Sri Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 10.Ven. Walathwawe Rahula Thero, Chief Incumbent, Nakolagane Purana Rajamaha Viharaya, Vijaya Sri Sumangaramaya, Ataragalla, Galgamuwa 11.Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents Page 3 of 51 Page 4 of 51 Before: Hon. Janak De Silva, J. Hon. K. Priyantha Fernando, J. Hon. Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna, J. Counsel: Dr. Ravindranath Dabare with Savanthi Ponnamperuma for the Petitioners Ganga Wakishta Arachchi, Deputy Solicitor General for 1 st to 9 th and 11th Respondents Hemaka Senanayake with Manohara de Silva and Ms Nethmi Muthunika for the 10th Respondent Written Submissions: 15.09.2025 by the Petitioners 15.09.2025 by the 1st to 9th and 11th Respondents Argued on: 05.08.2025 Decided on: 06.05.2026 Janak De Silva, J. The 1 st Petitioner is a non-profit organisation engaged in advocating for the “protection, preservation, conservation of nature and environment, promotion and advancement of the concepts of environmental justice and good governance in the interest of the general public…”. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents are respectively a Director and Executive Director of the 1st Petitioner. The gravamen of the complaint of the Petitioners is that an area of approximately 1,500 acres of forest in the immediate vicinity of the Nakolagane Purana Rajamaha Viharaya is being illegally cleared by the Viharadhipathi of the said Viharaya (10th Respondent) and/or his servants or agents. Petitioners allege the 10th Respondent to claim the lands in the extent of approximately 4,500 acres as having been granted to the temple under a Sannasa and that he is therefore entitled “to possess the said extent of land in the way he wants.” According to the Petitioners, the corpus includes forests, which are being cleared as a consequence of the 10th Respondent “distributing” temple lands among various “influential individuals and companies”. The forests are “being destroyed using backhoe machines”, for “commercial agriculture, to establish granite quarries,” and “soil excavation.” The Petitioners further allege that, around these commercial activities, unauthorised “electric fences have also been set up,” which has caused “a spike in human-elephant conflict,” because parts of the lands in question are “a key elephant home range in the area.” The electric fences, according to the Petitioners, cause elephants “to move through villages and cultivations during their seasonal movements”, which in turn results in increased elephant raids on villagers’ crops. The Petitioners claim that “the majority of the villagers depend on agriculture as their primary source of income…” Accordingly, because the areas being cleared are in the catchment of the Palukadawala tank, the Petitioners say the clearing of the forest has led to the erosion in the catchment and filling up of the reservoir with sediment. According to them, the commercial agricultural activities by the third parties also threaten the farmers’ cultivations around the tank as it creates shortages of water for paddy, which is the villagers’ main source of livelihood. In sum, the Petitioners’ claim is that the commercial agricultural activity, including the clearing of forests and the setting up of unauthorised electric fences, that the 10th Respondent has allowed on the lands in issue by “distributing” portions of them out to various parties, has resulted in a sharpened human-elephant conflict and a threat to the agricultural livelihoods of the villagers. Page 5 of 51 The Petitioners allege that the 1 st to 9th and 11th Respondents (State Respondents) have failed to discharge their statutory and regulatory duties with respect to the conduct of the 10th Respondent. These actions of the 10th Respondent and the omissions of the State Respondents, according to the petition, “had caused a severe escalation of the human-elephant conflict in the area and posed serious adverse impacts to the lives and livelihoods of the people at Nakolagane, thereby constituting the infringement and/or continuous infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the villagers of the aforementioned areas and the Petitioners under Article 12(1), 14(1)(g) and 14(1)(h) of the Constitution of the Republic.” Leave to proceed has been granted under Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g). Position of the State Respondents Several of the State Respondents, namely, the 1st to 5th and 7th to 9 th Respondents have filed objections and each of their positions are summarised below. In addition to their objections, several additional reports have also been filed of record. The circumstances in which these additional reports have been filed are as follows. When this matter was first taken up for hearing on 20.11.2023, Court directed the State to tender to Court plans if any, prepared by the Surveyor General under the Temple Lands Ordinance pertaining to the temple lands claimed by the 10th Respondent by virtue of the purported Sannasa. The State was further directed to tender a map of the area authenticated by the Surveyor General, on which— a. The land described in paragraphs 10, 11, and 14 of the Petition have been clearly identified and marked; b. The land claimed by the 10th Respondent by virtue of the purported Sannasa is shown; and c. The land depicted in the relevant map if any prepared in terms of the Temple Lands Ordinance. Page 6 of 51 At that stage, the learned Counsel for the 10th Respondent gave an undertaking that, “the 10th Respondent will not be clearing the land that is the matter in issue in the application and that if there is any power source that is injurious to either human beings or animals that it will be removed in the presence of the authorised representatives of the 1st Respondent and with the assistance of the 6th Respondent.” However, when the matter was mentioned on 14.02.2024, learned Counsel for the Petitioner brought to the notice of Court that the undertaking given by the 10th Respondent had not been given effect to as far as the removal of the power source is concerned. He moved that the assistance of the 9th Respondent also be obtained in giving effect to the undertaking, and that application was allowed. The learned DSG was directed “to liaison the said actions and to file of record, a report from the relevant persons with regard to the steps taken.” When this matter was resumed for hearing on 20.05.2024, learned Counsel for the Petitioners informed Court that the undertaking given by the State had still not been implemented. Learned DSG for the State Respondents informed Court that a motion dated 03.05.2025 has been filed indicating the steps taken. However, Court observed that the direction of Court has not been complied with. The report of steps taken filed with that motion is the Joint Inspection Report referred to in this judgment. In addition to this Report, two other documents were filed of record on behalf of the State Respondents. They are i) a report on the electric fences erected on the lands in issue (hereafter, the Fence Report), and ii) a report containing the maps authenticated by the Surveyor General (hereafter, the Surveyor General’s Maps). Summaries of these reports have been adverted to below after the summation of the position of the State Respondents. Position of the 1 st Respondent The 1st Respondent has admitted “the clearance of a forest” in the vicinity of the Nakolagane Purana Rajamaha Viharaya and the “ongoing human elephant conflict Page 7 of 51 persisting within the area.” He states that, “several discussions have taken place with stakeholders” on the situation. It has also been “suggested to prosecute … persons who are involved in the clearance of the forest reservation owned by the State and to identify the metes and bounds of the land of the [temple], demarcate the boundaries of the land of the temple and to take protective measures to protect the forests situated within the [temple land]” (emphasis added). The 1st Respondent states further, “it was also considered whether the lands which are subjected to clearance could be declared as a sanctuary upon receiving recommendations of the subordinates of [his] department.” The 1st Respondent has annexed 1R1, which is a letter dated 15.09.2021 from a Wildlife Ranger of the Galgamuwa Elephant Control Unit to the Asst. Director, Regional Office, Kurunegala indicating the findings of an inspection carried out after a complaint was made to the Ministry hotline number. According to the report, the inspection revealed that, “පන්සල ආශ්‍රිත ප්‍රදේශය හා පාලුකඩවල වැව් ඉස්මත්ත ප්‍රදේශය ජලාශය පෙපෙෙපෙක්ම වොන්ෙර එළි කර ඇති [බවත්] … ගල්ගමුව වනජීවි පාලන බල ප්‍රදේශය තුළ දිගින් දිගටම වනාන්තර එළි දපදහලි වීම සිදු වන අතර දේ දහ්තුදවන් අලි මිනිස් ගැටුම තව තවත් උඝ්‍ර දවමින් පවතී” (emphasis added). The officer recognises that some of the lands thus cleared include “රජදේ වනාන්තර භූමි දකාටස්” and recommends establishing clear demarcations between such lands and lands belonging to the temple, and “නාදකාලගදන් පන්සලට අයත් භූමිය … සඳහා වනාන්තර ආරක්ෂාවන් දලස සුදුසු ක්‍රියාමාර්ගයක් සිදු කිරීම.” The 1st Respondent has also annexed 1R2, which is a letter dated 18.09.2021 from the 5 th Respondent (Divisional Secretary, Ehetuwewa) to the representatives of 1 st to 3 rd and 7th and 8th Respondents. There, the 5th Respondent observes, “දමකී සියලු ඉඩේවල ප්‍රදව්ණි අයිතිය නාදකාළගදන් රජමහා විහාරය සතු වුවද දමම ඉඩේ එළි කිරීම දහ්තුදවන් දමකී ඉඩේ වලට පහළින් ඇති පාලුකඩචල ජලාශය හා ඒ ආශ්‍රිත වැව් වල දපෝෂක කලාපයන් හානියට පත්වන බවත් දැනට දමම ඉඩේ තුළ තම වාසභූමි පවත්වාදගන යන අලි ඇතුන් සහ දවනත් වන ජීවින් සඳහා වාසභූමි අහිමිව යාම තුළ පරිසර ගැටළු රැසක් ඇතිවිය හැකි බවත් නිරීක්ෂණය දව්.” Accordingly, the 5th Respondent requests the recipients of 1R2 to take Page 8 of 51 necessary action. The 1st Respondent has annexed 1R3, letter dated 01.10.2021 from Asst. Director (Northwestern Province) of his Department to the District Secretary, Kurunegala. There, the Asst. Director identifies the lands in question as, “වනාන්තර ස්වරූපදේ ඇති වන සතුන් බහුලව, විදශ්ෂදයන් වන අලීන් භාවිතා කරන වනාන්තරයක්,” which was at that time subjected to large-scale and rapid destruction (“මහා පරිමාණදයන් ශීඝ්‍රදයන් එළි දපදහළි කිරීම”). The Asst. Director goes on to inform the District Secretary that, though Kurunegala is one of the districts with the lowest forest cover (amounting to about 14% of the district), about 5%-8% of the nation’s elephant population live there, indicating that its forests were densely populated by elephants. The Asst. Director then notes that the elephants habitually use several of the lands in the area, including those adjacent to the Palukadawala tank, with no distinction as to whether such lands are declared by law as being for their use [para. 5, 1R3]. Accordingly, he notes, “දේ වන විට වනජීවි සංරක්ෂණ දදපාර්තදේන්තුවට කළමනාකරණය කළ හැකි ඉඩේ දදපාර්තදේන්තුව සතුව දනාතිබීම හා රජදේ අදනකුත් ආයතනයන් සතු රක්ිතයන් ද ඉතා අල්ප බැවින් දේතාක් කාලයක් වන අලීන් විසින් පරිහරණය කළ භූමිය පාරිසරික අවශයතාවයන් පිළිබඳ කිසිඳු සැළකිල්ලකින් දතාරව එළි කිරීම මඟින් වන අලීන්ට දමන්ම මිනිසුන්ටද අනාගතදේදී ඉතා බරපතල තත්ත්වයන්ට මුහුණ දීමට සිදු වීම දනාවැළැක්විය හැක … පසුගිය වසර 05 ක කාලය තුල අහිමි වූ මිනිස්ජීවිත වලින් 40% ක් ද අහිමි වූ වනඅලි ජීවිත වලින් 40% ක් ද ඉහත ප්‍රාදේශීය දල්කේ දකාට්ඨාශ තුළ බව තහවුරු කරදගන ඇත.” He further notes that the lands have been identified as reflecting a high level of biodiversity in general. However, the Asst. Director concludes by noting that the 2nd Respondent has the capacity to act under the National Environmental Act No. 47 of 1980 as amended (NEA) while his department does not, on the basis that the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance No. 2 of 1937 as amended (FFPO) does not contain sufficient provisions for that purpose. Page 9 of 51 The 1st Respondent has also annexed 1R4, in which the 5th Respondent requests Secretary, Ministry of Wildlife and Forest Conservation, to take steps to acquire the lands in question to either the Department of Wildlife Conservation or another suitable state agency. In 1R6, the Director of Irrigation, Kurunegala, informs the Asst. Director (Northwestern Province) of the Department of Wildlife Conservation that inspections carried out by his officers had revealed that the reservations of the Palukadawala tank had been cleared and subjected to cultivation, but he faced difficulties in taking action against those responsible without the reservations being properly demarcated. In 1R7, the Asst. Director (Northwestern Province) of 1st Respondent’s Department writes to the 5th Respondent, requesting her to authorise and carry out a survey of the lands in question for the purpose of demarcating the reservations and taking protective measures with respect to them. In 1R9, the Secretary, Ministry of Wildlife and Forest Conservation, refers to the 1st and 3rd Respondents a complaint by a local environmentalist group made to the Ministry, for necessary action. 1R10 is a letter from the 1st Respondent to the Asst. Director (Northwestern Province) of his Department, seeking his observations and recommendations. 1R11 is a letter from that Asst. Director to the Galgamuwa Wildlife Ranger, seeking observations on the possibility of linking the lands in question to “Wildlife Reservations” or converting them into a sanctuary. From this point, correspondence on the matter seems to have stopped until, 8th Respondent sends 1R13 about six months later and 1R12 another six months later to several of the State Respondents named in this application, among others, to meet and discuss the matter of the unauthorised forest clearing taking place in the lands in question. No minutes of those meetings are attached. Page 10 of 51 Position of the 2 nd Respondent On behalf of the 2 nd Respondent, 2A Respondent has admitted that Environment Officers of the 2nd Respondent conducted inspections on the lands on 17.09.2021 and 07.10.2021, after receiving a complaint from a local environmentalist group called the Haritha Udaya Jathika Vyaparaya. According to the affidavit filed by 2A Respondent, these inspections only revealed “that several areas had been cleared, burnt and farming activities had commenced,” and that “small trees and bushes were cut and burnt except for the larger trees and that a contractor has caused the preliminary work to erect an elephant fence around the land.” According to the affidavit, a discussion was held at the Ambanpola Police Station with the participation of the Complainants, government officials and the 10th Respondent, but does not specify the outcomes of that discussion [2R3]. The reports of the Environment Officers carrying out the inspections on the other hand [2R1 and 2R2] reveal more adverse findings than what is implied by the affidavit of the 2A Respondent. To wit, both 2R1 and 2R2 report that about 20 acres of land cumulatively, some of it adjacent to the Palukadawala tank, were found on inspection to have been burnt and subjected to cultivation. The reporting Officer in 2R1, one D.M. Premarathne, has specifically noted, “ජාතික පාරිසරික පනත යටදත් … දමම සංදව්දී ඉඩේ එලිදපදහලි කිරීම පාරිසරික බලපෑේ ඇගයීදේ ක්‍රියාවලියට යටත්ව පාරිසරික අනුමැතිය ලබා ගත යුතු ක්‍රියාකාරකමක් දව්. ඒ අනුව පේ සඳහා නීතිමය පියවර ගෙ යුතු පේ. ෙමුත් වයඹ ෙළාෙ තුළ ජාතික ොරිසරික ෙෙෙ යටපත් නීතිමය පියවර ගැනීපමදී ඇතිවෙ ගැටළුකාරී ෙත්ත්වය පහේතුපවන් පේ සේබන්ධපයන් ඉදිරි කටයුතු සඳහා ඉහළ කළමණාකාරීත්වපේ හා නීති අංශපේ උෙපෙසේලබා ගැනීම සුදුසු පේ” (emphasis added). The reporting Officer in 2R2, who is a Senior Environment Officer, has observed, “දමම ඉඩම නාදකාලගදන් පුරාණ රාජමහා විහාරස්ථානයට අයත් වන අතර 2018 වසපේ සිට පේ ෙක්වා ඉඩේවල සිදු කල සංවේධෙ කටයුතු සේබන්ධදයන් දබෞේධ කටයුතු දදපාර්තදේන්තුදව් පූර්ව අනුමැතියක් ලබාදගන දනාමැත. විහාර දේවාලගේ පනත යටදත් ඊට අදාල ඉඩේවල Page 11 of 51 සංවර්ධන කටයුතු සිදු කිරීදේදී දබෞේධ කටයුතු දදපාර්තදේන්තුදව් අනුමැතිය හා නිර්දේශ ලබාගත යුතු බැවින් දේ සේබන්ධව ඉදිරි පියවර ගැනීම සඳහා පබෞද්ධ කටයුතු පකාමසාරිසේ පවෙ ෙැනුේ දීමට නිේපද්ශ කරමි” (emphasis added). The 2A Respondent has also annexed 2R3, namely, the minutes of the discussion held on 22.10.2021 at the Ambanpola Police Station regarding the abovementioned complaint. Position of the 3 rd Respondent The 3rd Respondent has taken the position that none of the lands in question constitute State land and therefore do not fall under his purview. Position of the 4 th Respondent The 4th Respondent has taken the position that the temple in question is governed by Section 4(1) of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance, No. 19 of 1931 as amended (BTO), and that, in terms of Section 5 therein, “every trustee and controlling Viharadhipathi is subjected to the general supervision” of the 4th Respondent. He has also appointed the 10th Respondent as the trustee of the temple by letter dated 19.01.2021, with effect from 23.08.2020 (4R2). In his objections, the 4th Respondent does not specifically state that the 10th Respondent has leased out temple property without his approval, or indeed whether he has leased out property at all. In 4R5, however, the Deputy Commissioner of Buddhist Affairs for Kurunegala is seen reporting to the 4th Respondent the findings of yet another field inspection carried out, this time on 21.09.2022 (that is, about one year since the previousseries of inspections mentioned above). In this inspection report, the Deputy Commissioner informs the 4th Respondent that several parcels of land within the temple property had been leased out to various parties on single- or five-year lease agreements by the 10th Respondent, and that he informed the 10th Respondent to ensure that temple lands are leased out only in accordance with the law. He also reports observing a mango cultivation of about 16 acres within temple property and that he informed the 10th Page 12 of 51 Page 13 of 51 Respondent to report the annual earnings from the cultivation to the Department of Buddhist Affairs. With regard to the clearing of the forests, the Deputy informs the 4 th Respondent that clearing activity about a year old was visible in the property. He further mentions several commercial enterprises including a chicken meat factory started by a private company that the 10th Respondent had claimed to have bought the land from unspecified third parties who had forged deeds to the said lands without his knowledge, and that he had complained about this to the Ambanpola Police Station. Based on this, the Deputy Commissioner seeks the 4th Respondent’s directives on how to proceed with respect to the leasing out of temple property. The 4 th Respondent replies, by 4R6, requesting his Deputy to act in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance. It is apposite therefore to consider at this point of time, the provisions in the BTO. Under Section 20, “All property, movable and immovable, belonging … to … any temple … shall vest in the trustee …” (emphasis added). In terms of Section 4(1), the management of the property belonging to every temple is also vested in the trustee, unless the temple in question is specifically exempted from that section by order of the Minister published in the Gazette. For all temples (other than the temples for which the Ordinance provides otherwise by name1 ), a trustee must be nominated by the Viharadhipathi of the temple and appointed by the Commissioner [Sections 10(1) and 11(2)]. The Viharadhipathi may nominate himself as the trustee [Section 11(1)]. In assuming duties, a trustee must give “such security for the due exercise and performance of their powers, duties, and responsibilities under [the] BTO as the Commissioner of Buddhist Affairs shall … require” [Section 13(1)]. If the trustee is a bhikku he is required 1 Those are the Dalada Maligawa, Sripadasthane, and Atamasthane. to provide one or more sureties in place of security. A trustee holds office for five years at a time [Section 1], and whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of the trustee, a new trustee shall be nominated within a month of that occurrence [Section 10(1)]. A trustee has several duties under the BTO. Prime among these are those cast by Part IV to keep accounts and make up biannual statements of accounts [Sections 35 and 36]. Within thirty days of the end of each half-year, he must submit his accounts to the Commissioner (ibid.). All moneys etc. received by a trustee for or on behalf of the temple shall (with the Commissioner’s sanction) only be appropriated by the trustee for certain purposes prescribed in the Ordinance [Section 25]. Section 39 explains the duty of the Commissioner to ensure, after inquiry held, that criminal proceedings are instituted against a trustee who fails to duly account for temple moneys. The Commissioner has the power to hold an inquiry into any alleged “misfeasance, breach of trust or neglect of duty” committed by a trustee in respect of property belonging to the temple, either on his own motion or on the complaint of any person interested [Section 15(1)]. A trustee alleged of such “misfeasance, breach of trust or neglect of duty” may also be sued in court, either by the Commissioner or by any person interested [Section 15(2)]. Any trustee who “wilfully refuses or neglects to perform any of the duties imposed on him under the BTO shall be guilty of an offence,” in addition to any other liability he may incur with respect to such refusal or neglect [Section 19]. Additionally, the BTO imposes several other restrictions regarding temple property. There is an absolute prohibition against “mortgage, sale, or other alienation of immovable property belonging to any temple” [Section 26], and if ever such mortgage, sale or other alienation takes place, it is the duty of the Commissioner to direct the trustee to institute legal proceedings to set aside such alienation [Section 28]. While it is lawful for the trustee to lease all or parts of the temple property, there are significant restrictions to be observed. Chiefly, leases above a certain threshold [“a lease for … more than one year of land worth … more than five hundred rupees or … Page 14 of 51 more than five acres”, Section 29(1)] may only be made with the previous sanction of the Commissioner, and after calling for tenders. Moreover, “No land belonging to a temple which is leased under the provisions of [the] Ordinance shall be used for any purpose which is opposed to the principles of Buddhism” [Section 29(2)]. Where the sanction of the Commissioner is not required for the leasing out of temple property, “…the name and extent of the land leased, together with the amount of the rent and conditions, shall be reported within one month of the granting of the lease by the trustee … to the Commissioner” [Section 29(5)]. Finally, “All leases made in contravention of any of the provisions of [the] Ordinance shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever in law” [Section 29(6)]. Position of the 5 th Respondent The 5th Respondent has annexed two Final Village Plans depicting about 700 acres of land cumulatively, stating them to be the lands constituting the property of the temple [5R1 and 5R2]. Beyond these, she has not made any further specific averments. However, as summarised earlier, the predecessor in office of the 5th Respondent has authored 1R2 and 1R4, in which she notes the environmental destruction taking place on the lands in question and requests the recipients to take necessary action. Position of the 6th Respondent The 6th Respondent has not filed and objections. However, in the Joint Inspection Report, the Officer in Charge of the Ambanpola Police Station claims that their Police Station never received any complaints with regard to the elephant fence or the human-elephant conflict. At the same time, according to 2R3, a meeting of some twenty-eight stakeholders, including local villagers, had been convened at his Station wherein the matter was discussed at length. 2R3 constitutes the minutes of that meeting. Page 15 of 51 Position of the 7th Respondent The 7 th Respondent has admitted that four archaeological monument caves are situated within the temple lands in question, and that they have been gazetted by order of the then Acting Minister of National Heritage under Section 18 of the Antiquities Ordinance. She further states in her affidavit that, “through the expertise of the officers of my Department it has already been verified that the ‘Sannasa’ possessed by the [temple] is genuine and refers to 4,500 acres of land conferred on the said temple by King Sri Wickrama Rajasinghe”(emphasis in original). Annexed to her affidavit, from 7R1 to 7R7, are a series of archaeological approvals granted by her Department to various activities carried out within temple lands, dated between 10.02.2021 and 12.10.2023, both dates inclusive. All the approvals are granted on the condition that the archaeological monuments are protected from the activities. Annexed as 7R8a to 7R8c are a series of documents purporting to establish the authenticity of the Sannasa, of which 7R8c is an extract of “අභිදල්ඛන පර්දේෂණ සංග්‍රහය” published by the Department of Archaeology in 2013, wherein the Sannasa granted to the Nakolagane Temple is transcribed, translated, and discussed at length. Position of the 8th Respondent In his affidavit filed on behalf of the 8th Respondent, one Saman Kumara Lenaduwa, Director of the 8 th Respondent Authority has stated that, “a direction was forwarded to the 10th Respondent by way of letter dated 07.09.2022 to refrain from clearing lands in the area of land in issue. Further the said directive states that action will be taken in terms of the said statute if the 10th Respondent fails to adhere to the said directive.” A copy of the directive has been annexed as 8R1. Position of the 9th Respondent The 9th Respondent has stated in his objections that, during the field inspection carried out by the Electrical Superintendent, Galgamuwa, it was observed that an electrical fence had been erected by the 10th Respondent for the purpose of protecting crops Page 16 of 51 and cultivation, powered by a solar power project with the aid of battery. He states “specifically … that the said Electrical Fence was not supplied with Electricity generated through the National Grid”. Joint Inspection Report This Report was tendered by way of motion dated 03.05.2024. It details the findings made by representatives of several of the State Respondents. However, the contents of the Report do not alter my conclusions set forth below. Maps of the Surveyor General These maps show a cumulative extent of well over 3,402 acres of land as belonging to the Nakolagane Purana Rajamaha Viharaya. In the ‘main map’, these lands belonging to the temple do not possess a single, monolithic character—some parts are paddy fields, some parts chena, some parts scrubland, some parts forests. The map distinguishes between lands that are of a single character (forest, paddy, chena, households, scrubland, reservoir), from lands that are of a mixed character (indicating which characteristics are mixed). Vast tracts of land are thus characterized as mixed, consisting in some combination of households, paddy, chena, and scrub lands, at the same time. However, a significant area abutting the Palukadawala tank north of the temple is marked as forest. Within this area, surrounded by the tank, forests, and temple, is a large area identified as ‘paddy and chena’ in the map’s legend (no other area in the map is identified as such); but relative to its surroundings, the area is very clearly unique, and looks to represent recently deforested areas. The area is crisscrossed with yellow lines identified in the legend to be elephant fences, and amounts to 55 hectares, or about 136 acres. In addition to the fences crisscrossing this area, additional fences also surround a smaller area immediately south of it, which is identified in the legend as “විහාර භූමිය සහ අඹ වත්ත”. The report attached to the Surveyor General’s Maps states that the Page 17 of 51 maps do not depict the elephant fences constructed around some of the households, but it is clear from the maps’ structure that the area marked as paddy and chena do not include any households. Another map marks the routes elephants follow in moving through these lands; the segments that look to be cleared forest areas are clearly in the way of the elephant routes. The Fence Report The Fence Report contains the findings of an inspection of the electrical fences found in and around the vicinity of the temple property by local representatives of the 1st , 6 th, and 9th Respondents. It details seven such fences, and the fence indicating the lowest voltage among them indicates a voltage of 7 KV, while the highest indicates a voltage of 10 KV. All the fences emitted an electric current at least once per second, some of them less frequently. All of them transmitted a direct current. Contrary to the 9 th Respondent’s averments in his affidavit, three of the fences were powered by main Page 18 of 51 electricity, while three of them of them were powered by solar power, while the details of one fence does not specify how it is powered. The report concludes by stating that the fences do not pose any harm to wild animals and that they also pose no harm to humans “in ordinary course”. Position of the Non-State Actor (10th Respondent) The 10th Respondent has, by rote as it were, denied all averments of the Petitioners and taken up the position that the “activities” carried out by him are “completely within the area of the private property belonging to the Nakolagane Purana Rajamaha Viharaya under the grant of Sannasa…” (para. 15(a), Affidavit by 10th Respondent). However, he has not explained the nature of these “activities”. He further takes the position that, “the [State Respondents] have no authority to interfere with … my activities which is complained [sic], since there is no declaration under the Law as a forest land or catchment areas of reservoirs or reservations of tanks or prime elephant habits [sic] area or any other restricted or prohibited area relating to the questioned area” (para. 6, Affidavit of the 10th Respondent). The 10th Respondent has annexed a transcript, translation to modern Sinhala, and photo images of the said Sannasa, marked 10R1, along with a letter from the Department of Archaeology (7th Respondent) purporting to confirm its authenticity. Jurisdiction of the Court This Court’s jurisdiction in terms of Article 126(1) requires the dual finding that there has been an infringement or imminent infringement of a fundamental right and that infringement has been by executive or administrative action. Protection of the Environment The importance of the need to protect the environment and the notion of trusteeship over natural resources is found in ancient canonical texts and religious teachings. Perhaps this is an indication that early civilizations appreciated the importance of a Page 19 of 51 clean and healthy environment much more than we do. Buddhism places a premium on the importance of the environment and emphasizes the need to protect and conserve its riches. The Kutadanta Sutta [Diga Nikaya, Ch. 5] explains how Lord Buddha was able to stop Kutadanta Brahmin from performing a Yaga involving the destruction of flora and fauna and killing of animals by explaining its consequences. The sutta encapsulates the responsibility of the government to protect trees and other organic life and that government should take active measures to provide protection to flora and fauna. Vahropa Sutta [Samyutta Nikaya] expounds that cultivating forests and growing flowers are righteous acts that brings blessings day and night. Agganya Sutta [Diga Nikaya, Chap. 27] explains how greed and misuse of the environment led to societal weaknesses and exploitations such as theft, deceitfulness, envy, abhorrence and selfishness. In Encyclical Letter Laudato Si\' Praise be to you by Pope Francis it is stated (at para 66): “The creation accounts in the book of Genesis contain, in their own symbolic and narrative language, profound teachings about human existence and its historical reality. They suggest that human life is grounded in three fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbour and with the earth itself. According to the Bible, these three vital relationships have been broken, both outwardly and within us. This rupture is sin. The harmony between the Creator, humanity and creation as a whole was disrupted by our presuming to take the place of God and refusing to acknowledge our creaturely limitations. This in turn distorted our mandate to “have dominion” over the earth (cf. Gen 1:28), to “till it and keep it” (Gen 2:15). As a result, the originally harmonious relationship between human beings and nature became conflictual (cf. Gen 3:17–19). It is significant that the harmony which Saint Francis of Assisi experienced with all creatures was seen as a healing of that rupture. Saint Page 20 of 51 Page 21 of 51 Bonaventure held that, through universal reconciliation with every creature, Saint Francis in some way returned to the state of original innocence. This is a far cry from our situation today, where sin is manifest in all its destructive power in wars, the various forms of violence and abuse, the abandonment of the most vulnerable, and attacks on nature.” According to Hinduism, when a person is engaged in killing creatures, polluting wells, and ponds and tanks, and destroying gardens he goes to hell [Padmapurana, Bhoomikhanda 96.7–8]. Judge Weeramantry in Tread Lightly on the Earth, Religion, The Environment and the Human Future (2014) cite various religious texts to emphasise that many religions speak of the need to protect the environment and follow sustainable development. He states [at p. 228] that: “trusteeship of the universe is recognized in Islam and any violation of it by man is accountable and subject to punishment as the Qur\'an states “It is He who made you trustees of the earth … Indeed your Lord\'s retribution is swift, yet He is forgiving and kind (6:165).” The Romans appear to have appreciated the importance of protecting the environment and the guardianship over natural resources. According to Justinian: “By the law of nature these things are common to mankind – the air, running water, the sea and consequently the shores of the sea. No one, therefore is forbidden to approach the sea-shore, provided that he respects habitations, monuments, and buildings, which are not, like the sea, subject only to the law of nations … The particular people or nation in whose territory public things lie may permit all the world to make use of them, but exercise a special jurisdiction to prevent anyone from injuring them. In this light even the shore of the sea was said, though not very strictly, to be a res public: it is not the property of the particular people whose territory is adjacent to the shore, but it belongs to them to see that none of the uses of the shore are lost by the act of individuals … with the opinions of other jurists, we must understand populi Romani esse to mean “are subject to the guardianship of the Roman people”.” [Sandars, Thomas Collett, The Institutes of Justinian (3rd ed., 1865), pp. 167–168] According to Samararatne [Dinesha Samararatne, Public Trust Doctrine, The Sri Lanka Version, Democracy and Equality Programme Occasional Papers No 1, International Center for Ethnic Studies, pp. 13–14] there was a notion in Roman Law that certain natural resources must be held in trust for the public. In a speech attributed to Red Indian Chief Seattle [Speech of Chief Seattle, Si\'ahl (1786 – 7 June 1866)], it is said “This we know-the earth does not belong to man-man belongs to the earth. This we know. All things are connected like the blood which unites one family.” In Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change and others v. Woodlands Holdings Ltd and Another [(2024) 2 Law Reports of the Commonwealth 449], I held (at paragraph 15) that: “Although the right to live and enjoy a clean and healthy environment is referred to in academic discourses as a \'third generation right\', it is in my view one of the fundamental, if not the most fundamental right of a human being. None of the myriads of other fundamental rights, including civil and political rights, can be meaningfully exercised by a human being in the absence of a clean and healthy environment which can sustain life. Man must live to exercise any of the fundamental or human rights bestowed upon him. A clean and healthy environment is a sine qua non for the meaningful expression of any other fundamental right or human right.” The right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is now firmly established in international law. The International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion on Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change dated 23.07.2025 held [at para. Page 22 of 51 Page 23 of 51 393] that: “[…] a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights, such as the right to life, the right to health and the right to an adequate standard of living, including access to water, food and housing. The right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment results from the interdependence between human rights and the protection of the environment. Consequently, in so far as States parties to human rights treaties are required to guarantee the effective enjoyment of such rights, it is difficult to see how these obligations can be fulfilled without at the same time ensuring the protection of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right. The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is therefore inherent in the enjoyment of other human rights. The Court thus concludes that, under international law, the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.” (emphasis added) The recognition of the right to the protection of the environment is well established in our jurisprudence. As Tilakawardane, J. held in Watte Gedera Wijebanda v. Conservator General of Forests and Others [(2009) 1 Sri.L.R. 337 at 356]: “The right of all persons to the useful and proper use of the environment and the conservation thereof has been recognized universally and also under the national laws of Sri Lanka. While environmental rights are not specifically alluded to under the fundamental rights chapter of the Constitution, the right to a clean environment and the principle of intergenerational equity with respect to the protection and preservation of the environment are inherent in a meaningful reading of Article 12(1) of the Constitution.” In Ravindra Gunewardena Kariyawasam v. Central Environmental Authority and Others [S.C.F.R. Application No. 141/2015, S.C.M. 04.04.2019, at page 52] Jayawardena, J. held: “…in my view, when Article 12(1) of the Constitution is read in the light of Article 27(14) of the Constitution, it vests in the citizens of Sri Lanka a fundamental right to be free from unlawful, arbitrary or unreasonable executive or administrative acts or omissions which cause or permit the causing of pollution or degradation of the environment.” (emphasis added) Several of the State Respondents have admitted before this Court the Petitioners’ averments that forests within temple property have been cleared and unauthorised electric fences have been erected therein. That this has exacerbated the human￾elephant conflict in the area is also well established in the material before us. It is also clear from the same material that, while this environmental destruction was ongoing, several of the State Respondents whose statutory duty it was to either ensure the protection of the environment or the proper disposal of temple property, failed to take adequate steps to discharge those statutory duties. The details of the omissions on the part of the relevant State Respondents have been fully expounded below in discussing their liability. Accordingly, I hold that our jurisdiction in terms of Article 126(1) is engaged by the Petitioners’ application. Before proceeding with my analysis, I must examine the two preliminary objections raised by the Respondents. Time Bar The 10th Respondent claims that the application is time barred. He relies on the date the Petitioners had conducted a site visit to the temple property, that is, on 27.08.2022, as well as the fact that they had made complaints and representations to 1 st and 9th Respondents “over the years”. Page 24 of 51 Accordingly, the 10th Respondent contends that the petition dated 24.10.2022 is not in compliance with the one-month time limitation provided in Article 126(2) of the Constitution. In countering these submissions, the Petitioners have taken up the position that the infringement complained of amounts to a violation both continuing and imminent in nature. Continuing Violation In Wijesekera and Others v. Attorney-General [(2007) 1 Sri.L.R. 38 at page 40], it was held that, “The right to have a Provincial Council constituted by an election of the members of such Council pertains to the franchise being part of the sovereignty of the People and its denial is a continuing infringement of the right to the equal protection...” In Sugathapala Mendis and Another v. Chandrika Kumaratunga and Others [(2008) 2 Sri.L.R. 339] and Wijesekera and 14 Others v. Gamini Lokuge, Minister of Sports and Public Recreation and 20 Others [(2011) 2 Sri.L.R. 329], the large-scale, continuing nature of the impugned development projects was held to justify the characterisation of the State’s failure to conduct adequate public consultations as a continuing violation of the petitioners’ fundamental rights. The notion of a continuing violation was discussed at length by Marsoof, J. in Lake House Employees’ Union v. Associated Newspapers of Ceylon [S.C.F.R. Application No. 637/2009, S.C.M. 17.12.2014]. While Court held the application to be time barred, it borrowed language from the United States’ Supreme Court in defining a continuing violation as “a series of separate acts that collectively constitute” a single, continuing violation, and accordingly held that in such cases, the “cause of action accrues on the day on which the last component act occurred”. In Demuni Sriyani de Soyza v. Dharmasena Dissanayake, Chairman, PSC, [S.C.F.R. Application No. 206/2008, S.C.M. 09.12.2016, at p. 15], Prasanna Jayawardena, P.C., J., held that, with respect to a continuing violation, it should be asked till when did the alleged violation continue, and if the petition had been filed after more than one month from that date, whether the petitioner had “established that, they were unable Page 25 of 51 to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court due to circumstances which were beyond their control and that, there has been no lapse, fault or delay on their part.” Accordingly, in both these judgments, the identifiability of a date of last occurrence is taken as a given, which may be justified when a series of discrete actions are considered as a continuing violation. However, an important distinction must be made with regard to continuing violations in terms of whether they relate to a series of discrete actions or to a single, continuing omission. In the former case, a last date is easily and concretely identifiable as the ‘critical date’ from which to compute the running of time. Not so, in cases of omissions. When a continuing violation is complained of by virtue of an omission, the violation continues for as long as the omission continues. Starting from the moment the obligation to act accrues upon a party, until that party so acts, the would-be beneficiaries of that action can be said to be in continued deprivation of the benefits of that action. When the time between the accrual of the obligation to act and the action itself is of a reasonable duration, such as the time reasonably necessary to put into motion the relevant machinery of the State, there would invariably be no basis for a complaint of a violation of fundamental rights. But, on the other hand, when an obligation to act has accrued, and time continues to elapse ad infinitum with no action in sight on the part of the party who is obliged to act, the violation of fundamental rights arising from that failure or omission can be said to be in continuance. Indeed, it may be that, in some instances, a petitioner sleeps on their rights for months or years while the inaction continues, and in such instances it would be relevant to consider whether the time elapsed between the accrual of the original obligation to act (or the date the petitioner became aware of such accrual) and the filing of a petition invoking our jurisdiction under Article 126 is of a reasonable duration. So long as the time taken to come to Court is not unreasonable in the circumstances of each case, the day the petition is filed would be within the time bar, because the violation continues for as long as the omission continues. Page 26 of 51 In the present case, the material clearly establishes that deforestation has been done and is continuing on a large scale. With respect to every such act, the failure on the part of any of the State Respondents to take action in terms of the law constitutes an omission. Accordingly it is not possible to specify an exact date to compute the time bar in this case. Nevertheless, even accepting the date proposed by the 10th Respondent, i.e. 27.08.2022, this application has been filed within two months thereof. I am of the view that in the circumstances of this case, there has been no unreasonable delay on the part of the Petitioners in invoking our jurisdiction. Accordingly, on the basis that the violation complained of is continuing in nature, I overrule the 10th Respondent’s preliminary objection that the application is time barred. Necessary Parties The learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the State Respondents has raised a preliminary objection in her post-hearing written submissions that the petition must fail for non-joinder. The basis for this objection is that the Petitioners have failed to name the Department of Irrigation as a respondent in this application. However, as I held in Centre for Environmental Justice and Others v. Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa and Others [S.C.F.R. Application No. 109/2021, S.C.M. 01.12.2021], non￾joinder of parties is not, in itself, fatal, especially when the application raises serious issues of public law. Procedural defects such as non-joinder should not be permitted to shackle the Court’s constitutional duty to inquire into alleged violations of fundamental rights, especially where the omission is bona fide and does not impede the effective adjudication of the dispute. In this application, the lack of observations of the Department of Irrigation does not detract from the material that has been produced to Court by the other State Respondents, which on their own establish the core averments made by the Petitioners. Accordingly, I overrule this objection. Page 27 of 51 I shall now proceed to discuss the liability of the relevant Respondents. Liability of the 10th Respondent The core grievance of the Petitioners’ application is the 10th Respondent’s proprietary claim that temple property is private property by virtue of the Sannasa. The Petitioners disputed the authenticity of the Sannasa, while the 7th Respondent has affirmed it. In any case, the pleadings of the State Respondents, too, raise questions about the true extent of the temple property, its metes and bounds, its overlap with forest reserves, its character as “nindagam” and “paraveni”, etc. On the other hand, the Surveyor General’s Maps tendered to Court appears to depict an area of 55 hectares immediately north of the temple and abutting the Palukadawala tank marked as “paddy and chena land” with elephant fences crisscrossing through them, which looks to be, by their context, recently cleared forests. In his objections, the 10th Respondent has taken exactly the position the Petitioners attributed to him, that his activities have been on private property belonging to the temple granted to it by a Sannasa, and that the lands in question had not been declared as forest lands or elephant habitats by law. He does not explain this position any further and, in the absence of written submissions tendered by him, it is difficult to ascertain whether his claim is that the scope of the fundamental right to the protection of the environment claimed by the Petitioners is somehow extinguished or in any other way limited within private property, or that, as an owner of private property, he himself is entitled to certain rights on the property which override the fundamental right claimed by the Petitioners. In any case, he has never called himself the “owner” of the property; nor mentioned that he is its trustee. The entirety of his position amounts to the claim that temple property is private property because of the Sannasa and that it had not been declared by law to be forest land or elephant habitat. Page 28 of 51 Page 29 of 51 Accordingly, this dispute hinges on the 10th Respondent’s claim that the lands in question constitute private property by virtue of the Sannasa, and in any event, what rights attach to him as regards the property either as the temple’s chief incumbent or trustee. The answer to this question rests, in turn, on the nature and extent of the tenure enjoyed by the property, by virtue of the Sannasa. Rights under the Sannasa The 10th Respondent’s premise seems to isolate the Sannasa as the sole source of law determining the status of the temple’s property. As such, to test the validity of his broader premise, I will first consider the terms of the Sannasa itself. Before doing so, however, there is first the matter of the Sannasa’s registration to be considered. Under section 7 of the Sannas and Old Deeds Ordinance, No. 6 of 1866 (Ordinance), “… no Sannas … shall be received in evidence in any civil proceeding in any Court of Justice for the purposes of creating, transferring, or extinguishing any right or obligation, unless such … Sannas … shall have been previously registered in the manner hereinbefore directed.” A proviso to this section provides that a party may claim under an unregistered Sannasa if he establishes to the Court’s satisfaction that the non-registration is owing to, inter alia, some cause “utterly beyond the control” of the party producing it. In Cooke v. Freeman [8 N.L.R. 265 at 271] it was held by Pereira, J., as follows: “My reading of section 7 of the [Sannas and Old Deeds] Ordinance is that an unregistered Sannas, whether genuine or not, cannot be received in evidence in any civil proceedings in any Court of Justice for the purposes mentioned in that section; but if it is registered, while the bar in limine created by the Ordinance to its reception in evidence is removed, its validity or effect or claim of any party to have it received in evidence may be questioned on any ground other than that of lack of registration.” Page 30 of 51 Thus, when setting up a plea based on even a genuine Sannasa, the first requirement is to accompany it with evidence of its registration under the Ordinance. The 10th Respondent has not placed such evidence before Court, nor has he produced any material to avail himself of the proviso to Section 7. It is observed that with respect to that proviso, this Court’s ruling in Goonetilleke v. Government Agent, S.P. [29 N.L.R. 337] was that, inter alia, being born after the stipulated deadline for registration was not a sufficient cause under which the claimant could avail himself of the proviso’s exception. As such, in the absence of any material amounting either to evidence of the registration of the Sannasa, or to an explanation of its non-registration, I hold that it is not open for the 10th Respondent to plead the Sannasa in connection with this application. In any event, even if such evidence of registration or a countervailing explanation for the lack of it had been produced, the question remains whether the Sannasa has the effect of conferring on the 10th Respondent any property rights of the extent that he pleads in his objections. The starting point in ascertaining the property rights of the 10th Respondent to the land in issue are the terms contained in the Sannasa itself. As such, I reproduce here the translation (to modern Sinhala) of the Sannasa tendered to Court by the 7th Respondent as 7R8c, where it says, in relevant part: “…විහාර සන්තක දේ දකාටස්වලට රජ, මැති, ඇමතිවරුන් යන කිසිදවකු විසින් අවුලක් දනාකර දේ දකාටස්වලින් නාගල විහාපරට බත්, මල්, ෙහනින් යුතු බුදුන් වහන්පසේට කරනු ලබෙ පුෙ සිරිත් ෙවත්වා වටොෙසපයන් ප්‍රපයෝජෙ පිණිස ධේමානාන්ද ස්ථවිරයන් වහන්දස්දේ ශිෂයානු ශිෂය ඥාති පරේපරාවට දබාදහෝ කාලයක් ඉතා ස්ීර ව මතු පවත්නා දලසට දේ තඹ පත්‍රය ලියා දදන්දන් [ය]…” (emphasis added). However, the Sannasa ends with the following words: “බුදුන් වහන්දස්සන්තක දදයින් තෘණ කාශ්ඨ (දර ලී) ආදිය මල් පල යනාදී (දදයින්) ස්වල්ප මාත්‍රයක් දහෝ වඤ්චාදචන්, බලහත්කාරදයන්, තමන්දේ ප්‍රදයෝජනයට දහෝ අනුන්දේ ප්‍රදයෝජනයට පැහැර ගැනීමක් කළ දකදනක් දව් නේ මහා දේතව උපදින්දන් ය.” Thus, it is evident that, according to the terms of the Sannasa, the grant of land was made for the purpose of worship of Lord Buddha, and the upkeep of the temple, and that it specifically condemned using the land for personal gain, as well as its alienation for others’ personal gain. In Bulankulama and Others v. Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development and Others [(2000) 3 Sri.L.R. 243 at 255-56] Amerasinghe, J., held that: “The subject of land tenure in Sri Lanka, including the status, claims, and rights of the Monarch with regard to the soil, is an extremely complex one … there is justification in looking at the concept of tenure, not as a thing in itself, but rather a way of thinking about rights and usages about land. … the King was bhupati or bhupala – ‘lord of the earth’, ‘protector of the earth’ – lord – ‘adhipati’ – of the fields of all … at first, the question of ‘ownership’ was of little or no significance. Moreland wrote as follows: ‘Traditionally there were two parties, and only two, to be taken into account; these parties were the ruler and the subject, and if a subject occupied land, he was required to pay a share of its gross produce to the ruler in return for the protection he was entitled to receive. It will be observed that under this system the question of ownership of land does not arise: the system is in fact antecedent to that process of disentangling the conception of private right from political allegiance which has made so much progress during the last century, but is not even now fully accomplished…’ Later, grantees, in general, it seems were given the enjoyment of lands for services rendered or to be rendered in consideration of their holdings, or lands were given for pious and public purposes unrelated to any return. For their part, grantees were under an obligation to make proper use of the lands consistent with the grant or, in default, suffer their loss or incur penalties.” (emphasis added) Page 31 of 51 In addition to the terms of the Sannasa, because the lands in question amount to temple property, the BTO also applies to define the extent of the proprietary rights of the 10th Respondent. Rights under the BTO The BTO prohibits the alienation of temple property [Section 26], and temple property shall not be leased out for purposes contrary to Buddhist principles [Section 29(2)]. In other words, both the Sannasa and the BTO condemns the misappropriation of temple property in a manner that is contrary to Buddhist values, and the protection of the environment is a core value of Buddhism. As I have explained earlier, the Kutadanta Sutta, Vahropa Sutta and Agganya Sutta emphasisesthe importance of protecting flora and fauna and the ill-effects of harming them. In his Separate Opinion in Gabcikovo-Nagimaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment [I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 7] the then Vice-President of the International Court of Justice, Judge C.G. Weeramantry had the opportunity to explain the relationship between environmental protection and Buddhism. Citing the Mahavamsa, he recalled, at p. 102, the sermon preached by Arahant Mahinda to King Devanampiya Tissa, saying, “O great King, the birds of the air and the beasts have as equal a right to live and move about in any part of the land as thou. The land belongs to the people and all living beings; thou art only the guardian of it.” Accordingly, the 10th Respondent has by his actions violated both the terms of the Sannasa and Section 29(2) of the BTO. It bears mentioning at this point, that under the BTO, temple property belongs, verily, to the temple [See Ven. Omare Dhammapala Thero v. Rajapakshage Pieris and others (2004) 1 Sri.L.R. 1 at 15, per Bandaranayake, J., and reaffirmed in Ampitiye Wimalagnana Thero v. Kader Mohideen [S.C. Appeal 119/2014, S.C.M. 05.08.2024], Page 32 of 51 per K. Priyantha Fernando, J.]. In no way can it be said that temple property is “private property,” it is sui generis, and its handling and use is subject to special, specific legal requirements aimed at protecting temple property for the benefit of the Buddhist community, in line with Buddhist principles. The BTO does not contemplate any paradigm in which the Chief Incumbent of a temple is the owner of the temple property. He may not even maintain an action for the recovery of temple property [See Terunnanse v. Don Aron et al. (34 N.L.R. 348)]. It is true that he may nominate himself the trustee of the temple, but where he does so, all the duties and liabilities that appertain to the trustee applies to him, and all acts he carries out with respect to the property which the BTO has provided for, he performs qua trustee, subject to the supervision of the Commissioner, and as provided for by the BTO. Constitutional protection afforded to Buddhist temporalities The Constitution affords, in Article 9, special protection to Buddhism and the Buddha Sasana. In Ayurveda (Amendment) Bill Determination [S.C.S.D. 22-24, 34, 35, 52, 55 and 57/2023, at page 26], it was held that the term “Buddha Sasana in Article 9 of the Constitution includes the Dhamma (principles and teachings of Buddhism including in particular recognized and undisputed codifications of the teachings of Lord Buddha), the Sangha (ordained disciples of Buddha), the preachings, rituals, and practices recognised by Buddhism, codifications of the teachings of Lord Buddha and associated preachings, the institutional mechanisms such as Piriven, Temples, and Sanghadhikarana, and organisational mechanisms and structures such as Nikaya, and other systems such as ordainment to priesthood and Upasampada, positions such as Viharadhipathi and Viharaadhikari, Buddhist lay organisations such as Dayaka Sabha of Temples, and the property of the sasana such as Sangika Depala, all of which are Page 33 of 51 collectively called the Buddha Sasana which are in place in Buddhism to preach, practice, retain, maintain, promote, foster and protect that Buddhism” (emphasis in original). We also held, at page 28, that while the constitutional duty to protect the Buddha Sasana includes both positive and negative dimensions, “The positive element requires the State, inter alia, to take active steps to keep safe, defend and guard the Buddha Sasana against any harm, damages or injury from any source and take active steps to prevent its erosion from within and without.” (emphasis added) This Constitutional duty of the State encompasses the executive, legislature, and the judiciary, and this Court is accordingly bound by this duty in disposing of this application. The environmental impact of the activities within temple property The 10th Respondent’s position has not only been that his activities took place within the confines of private property, but also that such lands had not been declared as forests or elephant habitats by law. On the other hand, the Petitioners’ position has been, throughout, not that the activities took place on lands specially protected by law, but of the effect they were having on the natural environment, its resources, and the living beings who called it home. A perusal of the record, especially the papers annexed to their pleadings by the State Respondents, establishes the accuracy of the Petitioners’ position, insofar as the effects on the environment are concerned. The question that arises, then, is whether it is open for the 10th Respondent to claim that the activities which caused such effects took place on lands that had not been declared as protected by law. Such a position presumes that personal responsibility towards the environment applies only within specially protected areas, and that a person may do anything they wish on their own private property without Page 34 of 51 consideration of its consequences on the environment. Article 28(f) of the Constitution provides that, “The exercise and enjoyment of rights and freedoms are inseparable from the performance of duties and obligations and accordingly it is the duty of every person in Sri Lanka … to protect nature and conserve its riches.” Though the provisions found in our Constitution’s chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy are non-justiciable, Article 28 constitutes the clearest constitutional articulation of the most fundamental duties expected of those in Sri Lanka, and it is no coincidence that it includes an obligation towards nature and its riches. In light of this obligation, it is immaterial that the lands in question had not been declared as forests or elephant habitats by law. Forests are forests, de facto. The legal protection afforded to them is the duty articulated in Article 28(f) of our Constitution, and that duty extends to every person in Sri Lanka, and to every corner of our Island. Any reasonable person would have thought twice before visiting such violence on so sensitive a place as the lands in question in this application, but the 10th Respondent’s position has been that such circumspection was unnecessary, based on a spurious claim of privacy of ownership. It is true that, under existing law, certain special protections are afforded to certain prescribed areas, by virtue of, e.g., the Forests Ordinance, No. 16 of 1907 or the FFPO. However, that does not mean that all other areas of the Island are denuded of even the most basic protection owed to them. The 10th Respondent, by nominating himself as the trustee of the temple, has taken on the custodianship of nearly 3,500 acres of land, land that he had enough reason to know was environmentally sensitive. However, he chose to disregard the duty that that trusteeship entailed, based on the misconceived notion that temple property was private property, and that one could do as they pleased with private property. Page 35 of 51 Duty under the NEA Indeed, not all protections afforded by environmental law are predicated on special designations as such of the lands in question. Under section 23AA of the NEA, the implementation of any ‘prescribed project’ requires prior environmental approval from the appropriate agency. In the relevant regulations promulgated under that Act, namely, those published in Gazette Extra Ordinary No. 772/22 dated 24.06.1993, “Conversion of forests covering an area exceeding 1 hectare into non-forest uses” is defined as a prescribed project requiring such approval. There is no question whether the forests in the temple lands constitute forests within the meaning of the regulations. The Asst. Director (Northwestern Province) of the 1st Respondent’s Department has described the lands in question as, “වනාන්තර ස්වරූපදේ ඇති වන සතුන් බහුලව, විදශ්ෂදයන් වන අලීන් භාවිතා කරන වනාන්තරයක්…”, which aligns with the claim of the Petitioner that the lands constituted forests. The 10th Respondent has not made any specific averments disputing this claim, except to say that they had not been declared as forests by law. As I stated earlier, forests are forests, de facto. Living beings other than humans move through them and benefit from their bounty, much in the way that humans do, independently of their legal designation as such. No person could stand amidst a forest and claim it was not a forest because the Government had not said so yet. The duty imposed by our Constitution on every person in Sri Lanka, to conserve nature and its riches, presumes every person’s ability to know nature when they see it. For this reason alone would the regulator have refrained from defining the term ‘forests’ with any more specificity, leaving it the duty of the person contemplating the clearance of a forest to consider whether his conduct may attract liability under the NEA. Such is the circumspection that the regulatory framework of the NEA imposes on all government departments, corporations, statutory boards, local authorities, companies, firms or individuals [Section 23AA], and so imposes on the 10th Respondent, too. Page 36 of 51 As such, I hold that, in purporting to clear the forests, or allowing others to clear forests in lands which were under his custodianship, the 10th Respondent has failed to fulfil his duty to seek prior approval for a prescribed project under the NEA. Duty under the FFPO Several of the protections afforded to the environment under the FFPO, too, are not restricted in applicability to specially designated areas. The protection afforded to elephants under Section 12 applies specifically in any area outside a National Reserve or Sanctuary (“Save as is hereinafter provided, no person shall in any area outside a National Reserve or Sanctuary hunt, shoot, kill, injure or take any elephant…”) (emphasis added). Moreover, Section 20(1)(a) provides, “Any person who … hunts, shoots, kills, injures, takes, follows, or pursues any elephant or uses any electric wire to kill, injure or take any elephant or uses any device of any description to harm any elephant … shall be guilty of an offence…” (emphasis added). Section 53A provides, “No person shall use any poison, explosive or stupefying substance for the purpose of poisoning, killing or stupefying any animal” (emphasis added). Neither of these offences are restricted in their applicability to acts committed within a specially designated area. In terms of the locus of the offences, they are of general applicability. Nor does the FFPO, when it prohibits any injury to elephants or the stupefaction of animals in general, admit of any degree of injury or stupefaction, and all manner of such injuries and stupefaction are prohibited. Indeed, not all animals are the same, and an electric shock that could pass through one animal without injuring it may not necessarily leave another animal unhurt—especially if its age or size or the thickness of its skin is considered. Indeed, an animal may hurt itself in the aftermath of the delirium caused by an electric shock, no matter how small the potency of the current. Page 37 of 51 The 10th Respondent has not specifically denied the construction of electric fences within temple property. Their existence, in fact, is well established, both by the 1st Respondent and 2A Respondent in their affidavits, and by virtue of the Surveyor General’s Maps and the Fence Report. The construction of such fences is not absolutely prohibited by the FFPO, for it provides, in Section 55 that, “The Director may by a writing under his hand authorize any person to do any act otherwise prohibited or penalized under this Ordinance…” provided certain criteria are met. On the other hand, under Section 59, “Any person who attemptsto commit or abetsthe commission of any offence under this Ordinance or any regulation made thereunder shall himself be guilty of the same offence” (emphasis added). Between these two provisions, the illegality lies in the fact that constructing or allowing others to construct such fences without prior authorisation constitutes, prima facie, an attempt, or an abetment of an attempt, to injure an elephant or stupefy an animal. As such, the conclusion recorded in the Fence Report, that the fences did not pose any harm to animals or humans in ordinary course, does not have the effect of displacing this illegality. That Report is the product of 1st, 6th and 9th Respondents’ attempt to comply with the interim order of Court to remove “any power source that is injurious to either human beings or animals”. To that extent, the Report has found that the fences in question do not pose the harm to humans or elephants indicated in the Order. It does not, however, and cannot, speak to the legality of the fences, and indeed, the legality of the activities of the 10th Respondent within the lands in question. The explicit terms of the order made by Court to the 1 st Respondent dated 20.11.2023 was not to assess the fences’ capacity to injure humans or animals, ex ante. In any case, no such assessment could preclude, on its own, an accused’s criminal liability for having attempted or abetted an attempt to a) injure an elephant or b) use an electric wire to injure an elephant or c) use a stupefying substance to stupefy an animal. That Page 38 of 51 question may only be determined through the due course of criminal procedure, which allows for a prosecutor to make their case as regards charges framed, for the defendant to set up their defence, and a trial judge to render a verdict. I make no finding here as to the 10th Respondent’s liability at criminal law except to state that there is sufficient material for a criminal investigation to be conducted in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, No. 15 of 1979, as amended (CCPA). As far as this application is concerned, I hold that the 10th Respondent has failed to comply with his obligations under the FFPO to seek prior authorisation from the 1st Respondent for the elephant fences. Summation of the 10th Respondent’s Liability The extent to which the BTO has been observed in breach by both 10th Respondent and the 4th Respondent is self-evident in the aspects of the record I have recapitulated above. The appointment of the 10th Respondent as trustee in early 2021 is backdated to take effect from August 2020. There is no material to show who was the previous trustee, and whether the period the position stood vacant was within the statutory time limit. Temple property has been cultivated without accounts, leased without sanction, and sold illegally. While temple property is not to be alienated and not to be leased out for purposes contrary to Buddhist principles, it is clear that temple property has been both sold and leased out, to various commercial enterprises, including a chicken meat factory. With respect to the portions of temple property that have been leased and sold, the 10th Respondent has produced no material whatsoever to demonstrate i) their legality or ii) the due discharge of his duties as trustee. Given the facts of their occurrence were only disclosed to us through the annexures of the State Respondents, it is evident the 10th Respondent has suppressed them in these proceedings. Though it has not been conclusively proved that the properties sold were so sold with his knowledge or Page 39 of 51 on his initiative, it seems highly likely that it was. With respect to the leases, on the other hand, it is clear from the record that they have been given out either by him or with his knowledge, and either way in contravention of the provisions of the BTO and the Sannasa. In addition to the obligations under the Sannasa and the BTO, the Constitutional duty founded upon Article 28(f) calls upon the conscientiousness of every person in Sri Lanka to act reasonably, to tread gently, and to seek balance between one’s own interests and the interests of all, including those of living beings other than humans. The 10th Respondent has failed, abjectly, to demonstrate any such conscientiousness, and has as a result run afoul of several statutory obligations. To wit, a. He has failed to recognise that the lands in question were forests, and from this failure has resulted the clear violation of his statutory duty to ensure that the clearance of any forest area exceeding 1 hectare was preceded by an environmental impact assessment under the NEA, in accordance with the regulations promulgated thereunder; and b. He has failed to appreciate the protection afforded to elephants and other animals, particularly from electric wires and all stupefying substances in general, which has resulted in the clear violation of his statutory duty to seek prior authorisation from the 1st Respondent before constructing or allowing the construction of electric fences within temple property. The Petitioners’ position has been that the 10th Respondent’s conduct, as allowed to continue unchecked by the State Respondents, has had the effect of violating their fundamental rights as well as the fundamental rights of those on whose behalf the Petitioners have come to Court (that is, the villagers of Nakolagane, the entire citizenry of the Republic, and future generations). They have not prayed for a declaration against the 10th Respondent that he has violated their fundamental rights, granting Page 40 of 51 which would have been beyond our competence in this application. The jurisdiction founded upon Article 126(1) is restricted to determining allegations of fundamental rights violations arising from executive or administrative action. However, as was held by a Divisional Bench of this Court in Centre for Environmental Justice v. Marine Environment Protection Authority and Others (The X-Press Pearl Case) [S.C.F.R. Application No. 168, 176, 184, 277/2021, S.C.M. 24.07.2025], without entering upon the question whether the 10th Respondent has violated the fundamental rights of the Petitioners, we may nonetheless issue any just and equitable direction upon him “to secure respect, advancement and protection and the full enjoyment of the Fundamental rights of the People” [See, para. 583]. My reading of that decision is that, Her Ladyship the then Chief Justice and Their Lordships found that the liability imputed to a non-State actor in the course of making such a direction “need not be necessarily confined or limited to conventional civil delictual liability or to statutorily imposed liability … It can be liability sui generis under Public law for which both State and Non-State actors shall stand liable” [See, para. 586]. Upon the material placed before us, I find that the 10th Respondent has fallen short of his Constitutional duty towards the environment founded upon Article 28(f) read together with several of his statutory duties under the BTO, FFPO and NEA. These breaches have had the effect of impeding the full enjoyment of fundamental rights by the groups represented by the Petitioners, in terms of their right to the protection of the environment. Moreover, these breaches have also facilitated the destruction of the environment by third parties, particularly by the alienation and leasing of temple land. The Polluter Pays Principle is now firmly entrenched in international environmental law as well as many domestic laws. Page 41 of 51 Page 42 of 51 The polluter pays principle enshrined in Principle 16 of the Rio De Janeiro Declaration has been recognized and applied by our Courts [Bulankulama (supra), Wijebanda (supra), Kariyawasam (supra), The X-Press Pearl Case (supra)]. In Bulankulama [supra. at 305] Amerasinghe J. held that the costs of environmental damage should be borne by the party that causes such harm rather than being allowed to fall on the general community to be paid through reduced environmental quality or increased taxation in order to mitigate the environmentally degrading effects of a project. In my view there is justification in extending this principle to persons who aided and abetted environmental pollution by failing to exercise one’s proprietary rights to arrest such pollution. In the present case, there is clear evidence on the inaction and at times of positive facilitation of the 10th Respondent leading to environmental destruction. The directions I make in conclusion are based on these principles. Liability of the State Respondents The infringement of the fundamental rights of the Petitioners and others as expounded above, could have been avoided or removed by the several State Respondents named in this application had they acted in accordance with, and fully discharged, their own statutory duties. Article 4(d) of our Constitution provides that “the fundamental rights which are by the Constitution declared and recognized shall be respected, secured and advanced by all the organs of government” (emphasis added). In Wijebanda (supra), it was held that: “The Constitution in Article 27(4) of the directive principles of state policy enjoins the state to protect, preserve and improve the environment. Article 28 refers to the fundamental duty upon every person in Sri Lanka to protect nature and conserve its riches …” (page 356) Page 43 of 51 “Correspondingly, courts in Sri Lanka, have long since recognized that the organs of state are guardians to whom the people have committed the care and preservation of the resources of the people. This recognition of the doctrine of ‘public trust’, accords a great responsibility upon the government to preserve and protect the environment and its resources … “ (page 357) “The power of the state and public servants to … take suitable action for the protection and conservation of both the environment and natural resources is derived from its status as a public trustee. In this capacity state officials have a paramount duty to serve as a safeguard against … the degeneration of the environment due to private acts. The principle of inter-generational equity and the long-term sustainability of our delicate eco-system and biological diversity vests mainly in the hands of such officials.” (pages 361 and 362) In the instant application, that the State Respondents were aware of the ongoing destruction of the natural environment and its adverse consequences is established beyond a doubt. Several of them are reflected in the record corresponding with each other about the said destruction, the consequences it was having on the elephant population living in the vicinity of the temple, and the imminence of a catastrophe threatening both human and elephant lives. However, the record discloses very little by way of concrete action taken by them to rein in this situation. I will consider each of the relevant Respondents’ liability in turn. Liability of the 1 st Respondent The 1st Respondent had notice of forest clearing and the threat of an impending, exacerbated human-elephant conflict as of 10.9.2021, when a complaint was received to his Department’s hotline and a field visit was conducted as a result [1R1]. The 5th Respondent had also informed, among others, the 1st Respondent that destruction of the forests within temple property harms elephant habitats and threatens to exacerbate the human-elephant conflict [1R2]. The 1 st Respondent has characterised the land as a forest and an elephant habitat, and informed the District Secretary, Kurunegala, that it is being cleared at a large scale [1R3]. He had knowledge of the electric fences being used in the property, though he has taken no action about the fact that they had been constructed without his prior authorisation. In terms of Part II of the FFPO, the 1st Respondent bears the clear duty to ensure the safety of humans and elephants from each other, especially in areas where they live in close proximity to each other. It is also his general duty under the FFPO to “develop plans and programmes for the conservation of wildlife, their habitats and the biological diversity” in consultation with his Minister [Section 68A]. More specifically, the FFPO provides for the declaration of “any specified area of land within Sri Lanka … [as] a Sanctuary or a Managed Elephant Reserve” and it specifically provides that, “An area declared to be a Sanctuary or a Managed Elephant Reserve may include both State land and land other than State land” [Sections 2(2) and 2(3)]. Once so declared, the 1st Respondent would have had the statutory power to develop five-year management plans in relation to such areas, which are also liable to periodic evaluations and amendments. In other words, the FFPO provides an adequately flexible mechanism through which the 1st Respondent’s Department could have imposed a system of management within the temple property in the context of the ongoing destruction and the resulting human-elephant conflict. Indeed, in his affidavit, the 1st Respondent states that it was “…considered whether the lands which are subjected to clearance could be declared as a sanctuary upon receiving recommendations of the subordinates of [his] department.” However, inexplicably, he has failed to take any meaningful step in this direction. Accordingly, not only has the 1st Respondent allowed the illegal construction of electric fences within temple property, he has also failed to put into motion the machinery provided for in the FFPO to address precisely the sort of situation that both the humans and elephants of Nakolagane found themselves in. I find no satisfactory Page 44 of 51 explanation for this failure in the material presented to Court. Though it has been mentioned, in various places, that the reasons for his inaction were a) the lack of adequate legal provisions in the FFPO and b) the fact that the lands in question were not State lands, as seen above, both of these claims are untrue. There is adequate provision in the FFPO for the 1st Respondent to have imposed a system of management on the relevant areas, and the relevant provisions of the FFPO are applicable to “lands other than State lands”. In addition to the above, the 1st Respondent has also failed to enforce the FFPO in terms of the provisions protecting elephants and animals from unauthorised electric fences. The protection afforded to elephants in Section 12 of the FFPO applies to all areas outside a National Reserve or Sanctuary, thus encompassing even non-State lands, or lands held to be private or temple property. That section provides, “Save as is hereinafter provided, no person shall in any area outside a National Reserve or Sanctuary hunt, shoot, kill, injure or take any elephant…“ As already mentioned, Section 20(1)(a) of the FFPO specifically makes it an offence to use any electric wire to kill or injure an elephant, and Section 53A makes it an offence to use any stupefying substance for the purpose of stupefying an animal. In terms of Section 67B(1), “…every offence under [the] Ordinance shall be a cognizable offence … within the meaning” of the CCPA, and under Section 67A of the FFPO, “The Director and every prescribed officer shall be deemed to be a peace officer within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act for exercising, for the purposes of this Ordinance, any power conferred on peace officers by that Act” (emphasis added). Under Section 32 of the CCPA, peace officers have the power to arrest without warrant any person concerned in a cognizable offence, and under Section 107, peace officers may take preventive action against the commission of cognizable offences, including arrest. Accordingly, I hold that the 1st Respondent’s failure to take steps to address the damage being done to the environment in general and to elephant habitats within Page 45 of 51 temple property in particular, and the intensifying human-elephant conflict resulting from it, has violated the fundamental rights of those whom the Petitioners represent, including themselves, in terms of their right to the protection of the environment under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Liability of the 6 th Respondent The 6th Respondent is the Inspector General of Police. There is no material to hold him accountable for the impugned infringements. Had the Petitioners produced any material to establish that the omissions of the Officer-in-Charge of the Ambanpola Police Station was brought to his attention and that he failed to take any further steps, it may have been possible to hold him accountable for such omissions. The Petitioners have not made the Officer-in-Charge of the Ambanpola Police Station a party to this application. Had they done so, there is sufficient material to have held him accountable for the omissions specified above. Liability of the 2nd and 8th Respondents Both the 2nd and 8th Respondents were aware of the clearing of the forests taking place within the temple property. Environment Officers of the 2nd Respondent had conducted inspections on the lands on 17.09.2021 and 07.10.2021, after receiving a complaint from a local environmentalist group. The first such inspection had resulted in the conclusion that the clearing of forests taking place on the lands in question were liable for environmental approval and the failure to obtain such approval necessitated legal action. The only reason adduced on behalf of the 2nd Respondent to explain the failure to take such action is the reference in 2R1 to the applicability of a Provincial statute on the subject within the North Western Province. The 8th Respondent Authority, established under the said statute, has stated that, “a direction was forwarded to the 10th Respondent by way of letter dated 07.09.2022 to refrain from clearing lands in the area of land in issue. Further the said directive states that action will be taken in terms Page 46 of 51 of the said statute if the 10th Respondent fails to adhere to the said directive.” Despite this warning, no material has been produced before us to demonstrate neither the taking of such action, nor any reasons explaining the failure to do so. Considering the NEA, and its provincial counterpart, the North Western Province Environmental Statute, No. 12 of 1990 (Statute), both instruments provide its respective Authority the statutory power to issue directives to third parties. Section 24B(1) of the NEA provides, “The Authority shall have the power to issue directives to any person engaged in or about to engage in any development project or scheme which is causing or is likely to cause, damage, or detriment to the environment, regarding the measures to be taken in order to prevent or abate such damage or detriment, and it shall be the duty of such person to comply with such directive.” Section 51(1) of the Statute contains the same power. In terms of section 24B(2) of the NEA and Section 51(2) of the Statute, the respective Authority is afforded the power to seek an order from the relevant Magistrate to have a project or scheme suspended until the person complies with a directive that has been issued under Section 24B(1) or Section 51(1), respectively. The 2nd Respondent appears to have refrained from intervening in the forest clearing taking place within the temple property, despite having notice of the same, because of the fact that a provincial environmental authority existed in the North Western Province. However, this position has not been pleaded as such before us. In his affidavit, 2A Respondent has only taken the position that the activities in the temple property were of not such a scale as to warrant intervention on the part of the 2 nd Respondent. That position is clearly contradicted in the material placed before us, and indeed the observations of his own field officer as reflected in 2R1 (“ජාතික පාරිසරික පනත යටදත් … දමම සංදව්දී ඉඩේ එලිදපදහලි කිරීම පාරිසරික බලපෑේ ඇගයීදේ ක්‍රියාවලියට යටත්ව පාරිසරික අනුමැතිය ලබා ගත යුතු ක්‍රියාකාරකමක් දව්. ඒ අනුව පේ සඳහා නීතිමය පියවර ගෙ යුතු පේ.”) Page 47 of 51 In the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, the protection of environment is included in both the Provincial List as well as the Concurrent List. Item 37 of List I (Provincial List) in the Ninth Schedule is “Protection of environment within the Province to the extent permitted by or under any law made by Parliament.” Likewise, Item 33 of List III (Concurrent List) is “Protection of the environment.” Nothing in the 13th Amendment provides for the suspension of an environmental law made by Parliament by virtue of the mere fact that a Provincial Council has also legislated on the same subject, especially where there is no inconsistency between the two. Both laws continue to be in force. Nothing in the record indicates any correspondence between the 2nd Respondent and 8 th Respondent to show that the 2nd Respondent has satisfied itself that the 8th Respondent was adequately seized of the matter to warrant such deference. On the other hand, the 8th Respondent has only issued a directive to the 10th Respondent in September 2022, a full year after the field inspection reported in 2R1. Moreover, even though the 8th Respondent has issued the said directive, nothing in the record shows that the 10th Respondent complied with the directive, or that the 8th Respondent took any further step to compel compliance, such as by making the relevant application in the Magistrate’s court. Accordingly, I hold that both the 2nd and 8th Respondents have failed to take steps to address the damage being done to the forests and elephant habitats within temple property, which has violated the fundamental rights of those whom the Petitioners represent, including themselves, in terms of their right to the protection of the environment under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Liability of the 4 th Respondent The entire scheme of the BTO is premised on the supervision of temple trustees by the Commissioner of Buddhist Affairs. In the instant application, it is well established that the 4th Respondent was aware of not only the various commercial activities going on Page 48 of 51 the temple property without his sanction, but also of the forest clearing being carried out. Had the 4th Respondent adopted a more proactive approach in supervising the 10th Respondent as the appointed trustee under the BTO, much of the environmental destruction could have been averted, including by referring the 10th Respondent to the 2 nd or 8th Respondent prior to the clearing of the forests. Again, for no explicable reason, the 4th Respondent too has failed to act according to his statutory obligations under the BTO. Accordingly, I hold that the 4th Respondent’s failure to exert appropriate supervision of the 10th Respondent and thus failing to avert the environmental destruction resulting from it, has violated the fundamental rights of those whom the Petitioners represents, including themselves, in terms of their right to the protection of the environment under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Declaratory Relief Leave to proceed has been granted only under Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g). For all the foregoing reasons, I declare that the omissions more fully expounded earlier of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 8th Respondents have resulted in the infringement of the fundamental right to the protection of the environment guaranteed to the Petitioners under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. With respect to the violation of fundamental rights under Article 14(1)(g), it is my view that the material before us is insufficient to adjudicate upon the claim. The freedom to engage in the occupation of farming in an environmentally sensitive area as the lands which form the subject matter of this application calls for a delicate balance to be struck between that freedom and the right to the protection of the environment. In principle, there is no doubt that the native farming and chena cultivation practices prevalent in this Island since time immemorial are capable of sensitivity to the principles of balance that govern our ancestors’ relationship with the lands they inhabited. However, those views have not been represented in Court in this Page 49 of 51 application. Accordingly, I hold that the material placed before us does not disclose a violation of the rights recognised under Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution. Other Reliefs (1) The 4th Respondent is directed to appoint and authorise under Section 28(2) of the BTO, a fit and proper person with no demonstrable conflicts of interest, to institute legal proceedings under that section to have any mortgage, sale, or alienation of the temple property made in contravention of the provisions of the BTO, set aside and to recover possession of such property, for the benefit of the temple. (2) The 4th Respondent is further directed to authorise the same person appointed above to institute legal proceedings under Section 31 of the BTO to have any lease of the temple property made in contravention of the provisions of the BTO set aside and to have possession of such property restored for the benefit of the temple. (3) The 11th Respondent, Hon. Attorney-General is directed to establish a dedicated unit headed by a Senior Deputy Solicitor General or a Deputy Solicitor General to provide legal advice to all State Respondents on the action to be taken to comply with this judgment, as well as to appear in all legal proceedings instituted pursuant to the directions made by Court in these proceedings. (4) The 1st Respondent is hereby directed to recommend to his Minister, following adequate consultations with the local village communities, the declaration of the areas labelled as “forest (කැළෑ)” and the area of 55 hectares labelled as “paddy and chena (කුඹුරු සහ දහ්න්)”, depicted in the map of the Survey-General included in this judgment, as a Sanctuary or Managed Elephant Reserve in terms of Section 2(2) of the FFPO. (5) The 1st Respondent shall, within the areas described in the direction above, initiate a programme of replantation to restore the cleared forests, as far as Page 50 of 51 Page 51 of 51 practicable, to their original state, including by demolishing any and all electric fences and any other constructions. (6) The 1st Respondent shall, within three months of the date of this judgment, communicate to the 10th Respondent the cost of replanting and restoring the described areas, and the 10th Respondent is hereby directed to pay the said sum to the 1st Respondent within 3 months of such communication. (7) The Petitioners are directed to make a complaint to the relevant Police Station of the criminal acts referred to in the petition within one month of this judgment. The 6th Respondent shall direct the relevant Officer-in-Charge to expeditiously conduct investigations into the said complaint and take steps to prosecute the offenders. (8) The 1st, 2nd, and 8th Respondents are hereby directed to publish a notice addressed to the public of Sri Lanka in all three languages in a national newspaper published on a Sunday, within two months from the date of this order, apologising for their failure to take action to prevent the destruction of the environment described in this judgment. The notice must also specify the measures that will be implemented by them in the future to guarantee the non￾recurrence of such inactions. Application partly allowed. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT K. Priyantha Fernando, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT 📄 Download
06 May 2026 SC/APPEAL/49/2018
People’s Bank, 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT -Vs 1. Poruthotage Mervin Anasly Fernando, (Deceased), 08/20, Ilakkattuwa, Nalladarankattuwa. 1A. W. Siriyani Sunanda Gunawathie, 08/20, Ilakkattuwa, Nalladarankattuwa. 2. W. Siriyani Sunanda Gunawathie, 08/20, Ilakkattuwa, Nalladarankattuwa. 3. P. Anushika Maduwanthi Perera, 08/20, Ilakkattuwa, Nalladarankattuwa. RESPONDENT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENTS 4. P.D. Akila Jeewantha Perera, 08/20, Ilakkattuwa, Nalladarankattuwa. 4TH RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT People’s Bank, 75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT -Vs 1. Poruthotage Mervin Anasly Fernando, (Deceased), 08/20, Ilakkattuwa, Nalladarankattuwa. 1A. W. Siriyani Sunanda Gunawathie, 08/20, Ilakkattuwa, Nalladarankattuwa. 2. W. Siriyani Sunanda Gunawathie, 08/20, Ilakkattuwa, Nalladarankattuwa. 3. P. Anushika Maduwanthi Perera, 08/20, Ilakkattuwa, Nalladarankattuwa. RESPONDENT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENTS 4. P.D. Akila Jeewantha Perera, 08/20, Ilakkattuwa, Nalladarankattuwa. 4TH RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
06 May 2026 SC/APPEAL/19/2014 With SC/APPEAL/72/2013
Rupahinge Gunarathne (Deceased), Mihirigalgoda, Pahala Karavita. PETITIONER – APPELLANT 1. Rupahinge Nayanananda Indrakumara, Udakarawita, Ratnapura. 2. Rupahinge Sarath Chandrakumara, Gangaaddarahena, Udakarawita, Ratnapura. SUBSTITUTED PETITIONER – APPELLANTS -Vs- 1. Madara Swarnamalee Wijewardena Tennakoon, Ranasinawatte Walawwa, Uda Karawita. 2. National Gem and Jewellery Authority, 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. 3. Prasad Galhena, The Chairman, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. 3(a). Naveen Sooriyarachchi, The Chairman, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. 4. N.P. Samaratunga, Senior Regional Manager, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. RESPONDENT – RESPONDENTS Rupahinge Gunarathne (Deceased), Mihirigalgoda, Pahala Karavita. PETITIONER – APPELLANT 1. Rupahinge Nayanananda Indrakumara, Udakarawita, Ratnapura. 2. Rupahinge Sarath Chandrakumara, Gangaaddarahena, Udakarawita, Ratnapura. SUBSTITUTED PETITIONER – APPELLANTS -Vs- 1. Madara Swarnamalee Wijewardena Tennakoon, Ranasinawatte Walawwa, Uda Karawita. 2. National Gem and Jewellery Authority, 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. 3. Prasad Galhena, The Chairman, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. 3(a). Naveen Sooriyarachchi, The Chairman, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. 4. N.P. Samaratunga, Senior Regional Manager, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. RESPONDENT – RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
06 May 2026 SC/TAB/3A-3B-3C/2017
2. Poobalasingham Jayakumar alias Ravi 3. Poobalasingham Thavakumar alias Senthil 4. Mahalingham Shashidaran alias Shashi 5. Thileinadan Chandrakasan alias Chandra 6. Sivadevan Thushanthan alias Periyathamby. 8. Jayadaran Kokilan alias Kannan 9. Mahalingham Sashikumar alias Swiss Kumar Accused-Appellants Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent 2. Poobalasingham Jayakumar alias Ravi 3. Poobalasingham Thavakumar alias Senthil 4. Mahalingham Shashidaran alias Shashi 5. Thileinadan Chandrakasan alias Chandra 6. Sivadevan Thushanthan alias Periyathamby. 8. Jayadaran Kokilan alias Kannan 9. Mahalingham Sashikumar alias Swiss Kumar Accused-Appellants Vs. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent
⚖ Judgement of Court Pronounced by Hon. Chief Justice 📄 Download
05 May 2026 SC/FR/296/2017, SC/FR/9/2019, SC/FR/42/2019
SC/FR/296/2017: 1. Western Provincial Revenue Service Union, Department of Revenue, No. 204, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 2. H.R. Prasanna Buddika, No. 179/14, Mahara, Kadawatha. 3. D.B.U.S. Gunathilake, No.54, SanthaPitharaWatta, Yatadola Watta, Mathugama. 4. B.K.S.A Kumara, No. 54/2, KekiriWatta Road, Galthude, Panadura. 5. M.C.R. Prasad, No.486/10, Gonawala, Kelaniya. 6. W.S.J.D.G. Nawarathna, No. Sisila, Ovitigama, Pugoda. 7. U. Gunawardane, No.155/11, Hadugoda, Delgoda. 8. S.D Jayaratne, No.108/4A, Temple Road, Maharagama. 9. T.T Premashantha, No. 1342/4, Monrovia Place, Bogahawatta Road, Pannipitiya. 10. D. A Sumana Dedigama, No. 141/1/S, Seewali Road, Kurukulawa Road, Ragama. 11. P.P.T Anthony, No. 70/B, “Asiri”, Rukgahathotupola Road, Aluthgama, Bandaragama. 12. M.V.P Sisira Kumara, No. 5/1, Gallegedara, Dewalapola. 13. A. Nishantha Gamage, No. 25/2B, Eksathmawatha, Mahara, Kadawatha. 14. N.P.A Prasanna, No. 04, Gamunu Mawatha, Kalutara-North. 15. W.A.K Fernando, No.28/12B, Krushimawatha, Mawathgama, Homagama. 16. D M.U. Kithsiri Ekanayaka, No.24, Sri Lalankara Mawatha, Mullegama, Homagama. 17. J. M. D. Mahesh Dayarathne, No. 245/7, Chandawimala Mawatha, Thalapathpitiya, Nugegoda. 18. T.A. Y. Pradeep Tennakoon, No.40/2, Parakandeniya, Imbulgoda. 19. W. Chamaka Asanga, No. 63, Robert Gunewardene Mawatha, Thalangama-South, Battaramulla. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. K.C. Logeswaran, Governor, Western Provincial Council 1A. Hemakumara Nanayakkara, Governor, Western Provincial Council 1B. M. Azath S. Sally, Governor, Western Provincial Council 1C. Dr Seetha Arambepola, Governor, Western Provincial Council 1D. Marshall of the Air Force Roshan Goonetileke, Governor, Western Provincial Council 1, 1A – 1D Respondents at The Secretariat of the Governor of the Western Province, No.109, 5th Floor, Rotunda Building, No, 119, Galle Road, Colombo 3. 2. M.A.B. Daya Senerath, Chief Secretary, Western Provincial Council 2A. W.V.P. Pradeep Yasarathna, Chief Secretary, Western Provincial Council 2B. J.M.C. Jayanthi Wijethunge, Chief Secretary, Western Provincial Council 2, 2A & 2B Respondents at Office of the Chief Secretary – Western Province, Srawasthi Mandiraya, No. 32, Sir Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 7. AND OTHERS, SC/FR/9/2019: 1. Provincial Revenue Service Executive Officers Unity (Central Province), Revenue Department, 244, Katugastota Road, Kandy And 5 others PETITIONERS - Vs – 1. S. Maithree Gunarathne, Governor, Central Province, Governor’s Secretariat, Kandy. And 32 others RESPONDENTS, SC/FR/42/2019: 1. Executive Officers Union, Southern Province Revenue Service, 30, Wakwella Road, Galle And 43 others PETITIONERS - Vs – 1. Keerthi Tennekoon, Governor, Southern Province, The Secretariat of the Governor of the Southern Province, Lower Dickson Road, Galle. And 40 others RESPONDENTS SC/FR/296/2017: 1. Western Provincial Revenue Service Union, Department of Revenue, No. 204, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 2. H.R. Prasanna Buddika, No. 179/14, Mahara, Kadawatha. 3. D.B.U.S. Gunathilake, No.54, SanthaPitharaWatta, Yatadola Watta, Mathugama. 4. B.K.S.A Kumara, No. 54/2, KekiriWatta Road, Galthude, Panadura. 5. M.C.R. Prasad, No.486/10, Gonawala, Kelaniya. 6. W.S.J.D.G. Nawarathna, No. Sisila, Ovitigama, Pugoda. 7. U. Gunawardane, No.155/11, Hadugoda, Delgoda. 8. S.D Jayaratne, No.108/4A, Temple Road, Maharagama. 9. T.T Premashantha, No. 1342/4, Monrovia Place, Bogahawatta Road, Pannipitiya. 10. D. A Sumana Dedigama, No. 141/1/S, Seewali Road, Kurukulawa Road, Ragama. 11. P.P.T Anthony, No. 70/B, “Asiri”, Rukgahathotupola Road, Aluthgama, Bandaragama. 12. M.V.P Sisira Kumara, No. 5/1, Gallegedara, Dewalapola. 13. A. Nishantha Gamage, No. 25/2B, Eksathmawatha, Mahara, Kadawatha. 14. N.P.A Prasanna, No. 04, Gamunu Mawatha, Kalutara-North. 15. W.A.K Fernando, No.28/12B, Krushimawatha, Mawathgama, Homagama. 16. D M.U. Kithsiri Ekanayaka, No.24, Sri Lalankara Mawatha, Mullegama, Homagama. 17. J. M. D. Mahesh Dayarathne, No. 245/7, Chandawimala Mawatha, Thalapathpitiya, Nugegoda. 18. T.A. Y. Pradeep Tennakoon, No.40/2, Parakandeniya, Imbulgoda. 19. W. Chamaka Asanga, No. 63, Robert Gunewardene Mawatha, Thalangama-South, Battaramulla. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. K.C. Logeswaran, Governor, Western Provincial Council 1A. Hemakumara Nanayakkara, Governor, Western Provincial Council 1B. M. Azath S. Sally, Governor, Western Provincial Council 1C. Dr Seetha Arambepola, Governor, Western Provincial Council 1D. Marshall of the Air Force Roshan Goonetileke, Governor, Western Provincial Council 1, 1A – 1D Respondents at The Secretariat of the Governor of the Western Province, No.109, 5th Floor, Rotunda Building, No, 119, Galle Road, Colombo 3. 2. M.A.B. Daya Senerath, Chief Secretary, Western Provincial Council 2A. W.V.P. Pradeep Yasarathna, Chief Secretary, Western Provincial Council 2B. J.M.C. Jayanthi Wijethunge, Chief Secretary, Western Provincial Council 2, 2A & 2B Respondents at Office of the Chief Secretary – Western Province, Srawasthi Mandiraya, No. 32, Sir Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 7. AND OTHERS, SC/FR/9/2019: 1. Provincial Revenue Service Executive Officers Unity (Central Province), Revenue Department, 244, Katugastota Road, Kandy And 5 others PETITIONERS - Vs – 1. S. Maithree Gunarathne, Governor, Central Province, Governor’s Secretariat, Kandy. And 32 others RESPONDENTS, SC/FR/42/2019: 1. Executive Officers Union, Southern Province Revenue Service, 30, Wakwella Road, Galle And 43 others PETITIONERS - Vs – 1. Keerthi Tennekoon, Governor, Southern Province, The Secretariat of the Governor of the Southern Province, Lower Dickson Road, Galle. And 40 others RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere In the matter of Applications in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 📄 Download
04 May 2026 SC/APPEAL/117/2024
1. Niyas Cader No. 20 Negombo Road, Kurunegala. 2. Ishak Cader No. 20 Negombo Road, Kurunegala. 3. Illiyas Cader No. 20 Negombo Road, Kurunegala. 4. Nawas Cader No. 20 Negombo Road, Kurunegala. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANTS Vs. S.A. Sandaruwan Suriyaarachi Waththegedara, Wellawa. APPLICANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT 1. Niyas Cader No. 20 Negombo Road, Kurunegala. 2. Ishak Cader No. 20 Negombo Road, Kurunegala. 3. Illiyas Cader No. 20 Negombo Road, Kurunegala. 4. Nawas Cader No. 20 Negombo Road, Kurunegala. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANTS Vs. S.A. Sandaruwan Suriyaarachi Waththegedara, Wellawa. APPLICANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Section 31DD of the Industrial Disputes Act, read together with Section 9 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.19 of 1990. 📄 Download
30 Apr 2026 SC/APPEAL/7/2020
Nambukara Gamage Sriyalatha, Galagama-East, Nakulugamuwa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant 1A. Maravila Hewage Chandra Srimathi, ‘Damsiri’, Galagama-East, Nakulugamuwa. 2. Nambukara Gamage Pushpakumai, Galagama-East, Nakulugamuwa. 1A and 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Appellants Vs. 4. Kankani Gamage Kusumawathie, (deceased) Mulanahena, Galagama-East, Nakulugamuwa. 4A. Kusumalatha Viviyan Gohagodage, No. 383/A, Mulanahena, Galagama-East, Nakulugamuwa. 3A. Hewa Kalukapuge Ravindra, Galalindahena, Galagama-East, Nakulugamuwa. 4th and 3A Defendant-Respondent-Respondents Nambukara Gamage Sriyalatha, Galagama-East, Nakulugamuwa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant 1A. Maravila Hewage Chandra Srimathi, ‘Damsiri’, Galagama-East, Nakulugamuwa. 2. Nambukara Gamage Pushpakumai, Galagama-East, Nakulugamuwa. 1A and 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Appellants Vs. 4. Kankani Gamage Kusumawathie, (deceased) Mulanahena, Galagama-East, Nakulugamuwa. 4A. Kusumalatha Viviyan Gohagodage, No. 383/A, Mulanahena, Galagama-East, Nakulugamuwa. 3A. Hewa Kalukapuge Ravindra, Galalindahena, Galagama-East, Nakulugamuwa. 4th and 3A Defendant-Respondent-Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
30 Apr 2026 SC/APPEAL/79/2021
Leelasoma Sudusinghe, Beligalagoda, Ambalanthota. COMPLAINANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Hewa Angapullige Ariyawathie, alias Hewagamage Ariyawathie, Beligalagoda, Ambalanthota. SUBSTITUTED COMPLAINANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT - Vs - Jayanthi Wickrema Wijedeera, Beligalagoda, Ambalanthota. RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT Leelasoma Sudusinghe, Beligalagoda, Ambalanthota. COMPLAINANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Hewa Angapullige Ariyawathie, alias Hewagamage Ariyawathie, Beligalagoda, Ambalanthota. SUBSTITUTED COMPLAINANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT - Vs - Jayanthi Wickrema Wijedeera, Beligalagoda, Ambalanthota. RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere 📄 Download
30 Apr 2026 SC/APPEAL/144/2025
Duman Koralalage Vijitha Swarnasiri, No. 247/31/1, Suriyapaluwa, Kadawatha. APPLICANT – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Vs. Vendol Lanka (Private) Limited, No. 102, Kandy Road, Wewaldeniya RESPONDENT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT Duman Koralalage Vijitha Swarnasiri, No. 247/31/1, Suriyapaluwa, Kadawatha. APPLICANT – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Vs. Vendol Lanka (Private) Limited, No. 102, Kandy Road, Wewaldeniya RESPONDENT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere 📄 Download
30 Apr 2026 SC/APPEAL/186/2017
1. Mohammed Ali Mohammed Sahabdeen, (Deceased) F 65, Madurupitiya, Algama. 1a. Mohammed Sali Lebbe Nurul Huseima, F 65, Madurupitiya, Algama. 1b. Mohammed Thabdeen Sansul Inaya, F 65, Madurupitiya, Algama. 1c. Mohammed Thabdeen Mohammed Naleem, F 65, Madurupitiya, Algama. 1d. Mohammed Thabdeen Thawjul Huseima, F 65, Madurupitiya, Algama. 1e. Muhammadu Thabdeen Mohammadu Fasair, F 65, Madurupitiya, Algama. 1f. Mohammed Thabdeen Mohammed Siddeek, F 65, Madurupitiya, Algama. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – APPELLANTS -Vs Napagoda Archchilage Nimal Amaraweera, Kohumola, Kanda Road, Hedideniya, Radawadunna. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT - RESPONDENT 1. Mohammed Ali Mohammed Sahabdeen, (Deceased) F 65, Madurupitiya, Algama. 1a. Mohammed Sali Lebbe Nurul Huseima, F 65, Madurupitiya, Algama. 1b. Mohammed Thabdeen Sansul Inaya, F 65, Madurupitiya, Algama. 1c. Mohammed Thabdeen Mohammed Naleem, F 65, Madurupitiya, Algama. 1d. Mohammed Thabdeen Thawjul Huseima, F 65, Madurupitiya, Algama. 1e. Muhammadu Thabdeen Mohammadu Fasair, F 65, Madurupitiya, Algama. 1f. Mohammed Thabdeen Mohammed Siddeek, F 65, Madurupitiya, Algama. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – APPELLANTS -Vs Napagoda Archchilage Nimal Amaraweera, Kohumola, Kanda Road, Hedideniya, Radawadunna. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT - RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
30 Apr 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/1/2014
Mega Lifesciences Ltd. (Formerly, Medicap Ltd.) No. 384 Soi 6, Pattana 3 Road, Bangpoo Industrial Estate, Samutprakarn 10280, Thailand. Plaintiff – Appellant v. Harcourts (Pvt.) Ltd. Harcourts Plaza, No. 14, Station Road, Dehiwala. Defendant – Respondent Mega Lifesciences Ltd. (Formerly, Medicap Ltd.) No. 384 Soi 6, Pattana 3 Road, Bangpoo Industrial Estate, Samutprakarn 10280, Thailand. Plaintiff – Appellant v. Harcourts (Pvt.) Ltd. Harcourts Plaza, No. 14, Station Road, Dehiwala. Defendant – Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Yasantha Kodagoda, PC SC APPEAL – SC/CHC 01/2014 - MEGA LIFESCIENCES LTD. VS. HARCOURTS (PVT.) LTD. - JUDGMENT 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal under and in terms of section 5(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 10 of 1996 read with Chapter LVIII of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 128 of the Constitution. Mega Lifesciences Ltd. (Formerly, Medicap Ltd.) No. 384 Soi 6, Pattana 3 Road, Bangpoo Industrial Estate, Samutprakarn 10280, Thailand. Plaintiff – Appellant SC CHC Appeal No. 01/2014 HC (Civil) Case No. 253/2007/MR v. Harcourts (Pvt.) Ltd. Harcourts Plaza, No. 14, Station Road, Dehiwala. Defendant – Respondent Before: Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J. Arjuna Obeyesekere, J. K. Priyantha Fernando, J. SC APPEAL – SC/CHC 01/2014 - MEGA LIFESCIENCES LTD. VS. HARCOURTS (PVT.) LTD. - JUDGMENT 2 Appearance: Dr. Romesh De Silva, PC with Sugath Caldera instructed by Paul Ratnayake Associates for the Plaintiff – Appellant. Suren Gnanaraj with Sakuni Weeraratne instructed by Samararatne Associates for the Defendant – Respondent. Written Submissions: Filed on behalf of the Plaintiff – Appellant on 5th January 2021 and 29th August 2025. Filed on behalf of the Defendant – Respondent on 1st December 2022 and 7th July 2025. Argued on: 9th December 2024 and 21st March 2025. Judgment delivered on: 30th April, 2026. JUDGMENT Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J. 1) This Judgment relates to an Appeal against a Judgment dated 30th March 2012 of the High Court of the Provinces – Western Province (Commercial). Case for the Plaintiff - Appellant 2) Filing Plaint dated 27th July 2007, the Plaintiff – Mega Lifesciences Ltd. averred that it is a company incorporated in Thailand. The previous name of the company was ‘Medicap Ltd.’. On or about the 15th of August 2005, the name of the company was changed to ‘Mega Lifesciences Ltd.’. The Plaintiff’s principal business activity was the supply, sale and delivery of pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals. 3) During the period relevant to this case, the Defendant functioned as the Agent of the Plaintiff in Sri Lanka. 4) On a request by the Defendant, the Plaintiff supplied to the Defendant pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals, the details of which were stated in the SC APPEAL – SC/CHC 01/2014 - MEGA LIFESCIENCES LTD. VS. HARCOURTS (PVT.) LTD. - JUDGMENT 3 statement of accounts attached to the Plaint marked “A”. Due to these transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, by letter dated 28th July 2005 attached to the Plaint marked “B”, the Defendant acknowledged that a sum of United States Dollars (USD) 296,316.00 was due from him to the Plaintiff and promised to make such payment. The Defendant did not fulfill that undertaking. Thus, the Plaintiff further averred that the outstanding amount had given rise to the first cause of action. 5) Furthermore, due to further transactions between the parties reflected in the Statement of Accounts marked “C” (also referred to as the ‘line account’), a further sum of USD 135,122.00 became due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff. By letter dated 28th July 2005 (“B”), the Defendant undertook to pay the Plaintiff that amount too. That undertaking was also not fulfilled by the Defendant. The Plaintiff averred that the breach of that undertaking gave rise to the second cause of action. 6) Furthermore, at the request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff had delivered to the Defendant certain stocks of goods. The Defendant was obliged to pay the Plaintiff the value of such stocks, which was USD 64,234.00. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff that sum, too. The Plaintiff averred that such a breach had given rise to the third cause of action. 7) In view of the foregoing, causes of action had accrued to the Plaintiff to sue the Defendant to recover the aggregate amount due, which was USD 495,671.00. 8) In support of the Plaintiff’s case, Thomas Abraham, the Chief Financial Officer of the Plaintiff company (functioning as the Director of Projects at the time he gave oral evidence) tendered affidavit evidence (as a substitute for his examination-in￾chief) and later made himself available for cross-examination. 9) According to the witness, Mega Products Ltd. was the Distributor of the Plaintiff company. The distribution of goods to the Defendant was through Mega Products Ltd. Therefore, all documents pertaining to the distribution of goods were attended to by Mega Products Ltd. The Defendant knew of this arrangement. Based on this understanding, the Plaintiff supplied goods to the Defendant through Mega Products Ltd. He said that the supply of such goods is reflected in the several invoices marked and produced “P5” to “P23”. SC APPEAL – SC/CHC 01/2014 - MEGA LIFESCIENCES LTD. VS. HARCOURTS (PVT.) LTD. - JUDGMENT 4 10) According to Abraham, by “P4” (which is also the document annexed to the Plaint marked “B”), the Defendant had admitted that the full sum contained therein (US $ 296,988/=) was due and owing from him to the Plaintiff and undertook to make that payment. Thereafter, he breached that undertaking. 11) Albeit brief, that is the case for the Plaintiff - Appellant. 12) Under cross-examination, the witness has testified that the Plaintiff’s complaint to Court related to ‘goods sold and delivered’ by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and that the Defendant had failed to pay the price for such goods. He has admitted that “P24” (the written undertaking issued by the Defendant and attached to the Plaint marked “B”) does not contain any reference to any of the invoices produced by the witness at the trial as relating to such goods that were sold. It has also been elicited that the first cause of action relates to ‘goods sold and delivered’ to the Defendant. The amount due from the Defendant in that regard is US $ 296,000/=. The third cause of action relates to stocks with the Defendant, which amounts to US $ 62,234/=. However, the witness has conceded that, such stocks are covered by the goods sold and delivered, which are reflected in invoices “P5” to “P23”. However, what was being claimed under the 3rd cause of action arises out of a re￾valuation of the price of those goods. Thus, the witness has conceded that in the third cause of action, the Plaintiff had sought to claim an additional price to the goods already sold to the Defendant. Case for the Defendant - Respondent 13) By its Answer dated 10th December 2007, the Defendant averred that the transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant were regulated by a written agreement dated 1st August 2001 (“V1”). At all times relevant to the transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant had acted strictly according to “V1”. 14) Furthermore, his position was that “B” and “C” do not amount to agreements entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. 15) During the period “V1” was in force, the Defendant had acted as the Plaintiff’s Agent in Sri Lanka. As a result of the Defendant acting in that capacity, he had to incur a considerable expense in order to market the Plaintiff’s products in Sri Lanka. The amount expended by the Defendant in that regard was Rs. SC APPEAL – SC/CHC 01/2014 - MEGA LIFESCIENCES LTD. VS. HARCOURTS (PVT.) LTD. - JUDGMENT 5 35,364,631.82. According to the agreement entered into between the parties (“V1”), the Plaintiff was obliged to reimburse the Defendant, for any expenditure incurred by the latter. However, the Plaintiff did not reimburse that amount due to the Defendant. Therefore, a cause of action (first cause of action) had accrued to the Defendant to sue the Plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 35,364,631.82. 16) Furthermore, during the period the Defendant functioned as the Plaintiff’s Agent in Sri Lanka, he had to incur expenditure in a sum of Rs. 5,961,670.00 for the distribution of the Plaintiff’s goods. He did so by using vehicles. The Plaintiff has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred by the Defendant in that regard as well. Therefore, a second cause of action had accrued to the Defendant to sue the Plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 5,961,670.00. 17)In addition thereto, during the period when the Defendant functioned as the Agent of the Plaintiff, the Defendant had to spend a sum of Rs. 12,489,212.03 for general overheads relating to the distribution of the Plaintiff’s goods. The Plaintiff has not reimbursed that expenditure as well. Therefore, a third cause of action had accrued to the Defendant to sue the Plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 12,489,212.03. 18)In view of the foregoing, a composite cause of action had accrued to the Defendant to sue the Plaintiff to recover the full amount due, which was Rs. 53,815,513.85. 19) Though the Defendant had in his Answer raised these claims in reconvention, by an application made in Court on 10th June 2008, learned Counsel for the Defendant had withdrawn these claims, with the liberty to file a fresh action for the recovery of monies due from the Plaintiff to the Defendant. 20) Mohammed Naleer Sally, as the General Manager (Administration) of the company, has testified on behalf of the Defendant. Through his affidavit, he had produced documents marked “D”, and “D1” to “D1007(a)” and their contents have been led in evidence. According to the witness, with effect from 1st August 2001, the Defendant had become the sole ‘Distributor’ of the Plaintiff’s goods in Sri Lanka. That relationship is regulated by agreement “V1”. Various sums of money were expended by the Defendant company in relation to the promotion, advertising and marketing of the Plaintiff’s goods in Sri Lanka. Further sums of money are due from the Plaintiff to the Defendant in relation to the transport of goods of the Plaintiff and with regard to general overheads. Accordingly, an SC APPEAL – SC/CHC 01/2014 - MEGA LIFESCIENCES LTD. VS. HARCOURTS (PVT.) LTD. - JUDGMENT 6 aggregate sum of Rs. 53,815,513.85 is due in that regard from the Plaintiff to the Defendant. In view of the transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, no sum of money was due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff. Documents “D1” to “D1007(a)” reflect the sums of money due from the Plaintiff to the Defendant. Furthermore, the obligation contained in “P24” was towards Mega Products Ltd. and not towards the Defendant. 21) The sole question put to the Defendant’s witness by learned Counsel for the Plaintiff has been a suggestion that ‘what is stated in the affidavit is incorrect’. The witness has denied that allegation. Judgment of the High Court 22) The learned Judge has noted that the Plaintiff in his Plaint had not taken up the position that the Defendant was his ‘Distributor’ and had not presented documentary evidence to establish such a relationship. Furthermore, he has noted that such a position was taken up only by the Defendant. 23) The learned Judge of the High Court has observed that the Plaintiff had failed to establish a relationship between the promise contained in “B” (produced at the trial marked “P24”) and the amount purportedly due to the Plaintiff as a result of the Plaintiff having delivered to the Defendant certain stocks of goods. 24) The learned Judge has also observed that the purported undertaking contained in “B” had been entered into between Plaintiff’s witness Thomas Abraham (on behalf of Mega Products Ltd.) and the Chairman of the Defendant – Mohamed Riyaz. He has noted that the Plaintiff had failed to take up this position (that products of the Plaintiff were distributed via Mega Products Ltd.) in the Plaint, thereby precluding the Defendant from responding to that position. Furthermore, he has noted that, what “P24” reveals is that the Defendant has undertaken to make the payment contained therein to Mega Products Ltd., and not to the Plaintiff. The learned Judge has noted that the name ‘Mega Products Ltd.’ was not the previous name of the Plaintiff company. He has observed that interpreting the undertaking given by the Defendant to Mega Products Ltd. as amounting to an undertaking given to the Plaintiff would be erroneous and would cause prejudice to the Defendant. He has also noted that the Plaintiff did not call a witness to testify on behalf of Mega Products, and corroborate the Plaintiff’s position that the Plaintiff operated through Mega Products Ltd. SC APPEAL – SC/CHC 01/2014 - MEGA LIFESCIENCES LTD. VS. HARCOURTS (PVT.) LTD. - JUDGMENT 7 25) Focusing his attention on the sums of money purportedly due to the Plaintiff from the Defendant on account of the ‘running account’ (“P5” to “P23”), the learned Judge has noted that the amount due per each invoice had become prescribed (as per section 8 of the Prescription Ordinance) as a result of action not having been filed within 1 year of the last payment due. 26) Furthermore, referring to the goods purportedly issued to the Defendant by the Plaintiff (as reflected in “P5” to “P23”), the learned Judge has concluded that the contents of those documents which related to the Plaintiff (as opposed to the documents relating to Mega Products Ltd.), reveal that such documents are merely ‘Certificates of Analysis’. Accordingly, he has concluded that “P5” to “P23” do not generate any obligation by the Defendant towards the Plaintiff. 27) Due to the foregoing, the learned Judge has concluded that the Plaintiff had failed to establish any of the causes of action contained in the Plaint, and therefore has dismissed the Plaint. Submissions of Counsel 28) Learned President’s Counsel for the Plaintiff – Appellant submitted that the Judge of the High Court had dismissed the Plaint solely on the basis that there had been no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. He submitted that it was an erroneous basis, as the evidence revealed otherwise. Deviating from the averment contained in the Plaint, learned President’s Counsel insisted that the Defendant was the Plaintiff’s ‘Distributor’ in Sri Lanka and therefore was required to sell the goods that were conveyed to him by the Plaintiff or if it was not possible to sell the goods, return them to the Plaintiff. Deviating from the Plaintiff’s witness’s testimony regarding the first cause of action, learned President’s Counsel for the Plaintiff – Appellant also submitted that the transaction between the parties was not a “goods sold and delivered transaction”. 29) Learned President’s Counsel submitted further that documents “P5” to “P23” were proof that the goods had been supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. According to these documents, the sum due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff was US $ 296,988.00. According to “B”, the Defendant had acknowledged that the said sum was due and owing to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant had promised and undertaken to pay such sum. Furthermore, “P26” to “P35” revealed the “calculation SC APPEAL – SC/CHC 01/2014 - MEGA LIFESCIENCES LTD. VS. HARCOURTS (PVT.) LTD. - JUDGMENT 8 of margin” which the Defendant was obliged to pay the Plaintiff. Such sum that was due to the Plaintiff was US $ 406,941.75. 30) Learned Counsel for the Defendant – Respondent submitted that the Plaintiff had failed to establish that the ‘promise to pay’ document “B” (“P24”) was in fact an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Document “B” was not an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. It was an agreement between Mega Products Ltd. and the Defendant. He submitted that Mega Products Ltd. was a company distinct from the Plaintiff company. He explained that Mega Products Ltd. had also been supplying pharmaceuticals to the Defendant, and “B” related to such transactions. In these circumstances, learned Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff did not have a legal entitlement to sue the Defendant based on “B”. Learned Counsel also pointed out that though the Plaintiff’s witness Thomas Abraham had signed “B”, he had done so as the Chief Financial Officer of Mega Products Ltd. and not on behalf of the Plaintiff company. Therefore, if at all, it should be Mega Products Ltd. which had the entitlement to sue the Defendant and not the Plaintiff. 31) Drawing the attention of this Court to documents “P5” to “P23”, learned Counsel for the Defendant – Respondent submitted that those documents reflected transactions between Mega Products Ltd. and the Defendant and not between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Explaining that submission, learned Counsel submitted that all the invoices had been issued by Mega Products Ltd. and not by the Plaintiff. The situation with regard to ‘Packing Lists’, ‘Bills of Lading’, ‘Marine Cargo Policy Certificates’, ‘Cusdecs’, ‘Airway Bills’ and documents containing instructions given to Banks, was also the same, as they too had either been issued by Mega Products Ltd. or contained references to such company and not to the Plaintiff. The only documents which contained references to the Plaintiff’s former name (Medicap Ltd.) were the ‘Certificates of Analysis’. However, such documents too did not reflect details of monies due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff. In these circumstances, learned Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff – Appellant had failed to prove any cause of action against the Defendant – Respondent. In these circumstances, learned Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff did not have any legal entitlement to institute the action against the Defendant. 32) Learned Counsel for the Defendant – Respondent also submitted that the Plaintiff had intentionally suppressed the ‘Distributorship Agreement’ (“V1”) entered into SC APPEAL – SC/CHC 01/2014 - MEGA LIFESCIENCES LTD. VS. HARCOURTS (PVT.) LTD. - JUDGMENT 9 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. He further submitted that, such suppression was due to the said agreement containing a clause which stipulated that, should a dispute arise, jurisdiction for judicial adjudication of such dispute was vested in ‘Singaporean Courts’, and thus, the Commercial High Court of Sri Lanka would not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. Thus, had the agreement been pleaded by the Plaintiff, the High Court would have refused to entertain the Plaint and hear the case. Thus, the Plaintiff had suppressed the agreement. 33) Learned Counsel also submitted that, though the Plaintiff – Appellant’s principal claim was founded upon “B”, its alternate position was based on documents “P5” to “P23”, which were a series of invoices, packing lists, Bills of Lading and Marine Policy certificates, pertaining to ‘goods sold and delivered’ by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. He submitted that, if that was the nature of the transactions between the parties, the claim of the Plaintiff founded upon the said documents was prescribed in terms of section 8 of the Prescription Ordinance. 34) Due to the foregoing reasons and certain other grounds urged by him, learned Counsel for the Defendant – Appellant submitted that the findings reached by the learned Judge of the Commercial High Court were valid and thus, the Appeal of the Plaintiff – Appellant should necessarily fail. Analysis and Conclusions 35) The first matter that requires consideration is the nature of the relationship that existed between the Plaintiff – Appellant on the one hand, and the Defendant – Respondent on the other hand, during the period relevant to the case. It is common ground that it was contractual in nature. Though learned President’s Counsel for the Plaintiff - Appellant took a different view, the Plaintiff in his Plaint took up the position that the relationship was one of Principal and Agent. The Plaint states that the Defendant was the Agent of the Plaintiff in Sri Lanka. The sole witness for the Plaintiff, Thomas Abraham, supported this position. The Plaintiff failed to present to Court the agreement that governed the ‘Principal and Agent’ relationship. The Defendant annexed to the Answer “V1” which reveals that the Defendant had been the Distributor of the Plaintiff. However, as noted by the learned Judge of the High Court, “V1” was not produced in evidence. Nevertheless, it must be observed that in the Replication dated 21st February 2008 filed by the Plaintiff, he had not averred that the relationship that existed between SC APPEAL – SC/CHC 01/2014 - MEGA LIFESCIENCES LTD. VS. HARCOURTS (PVT.) LTD. - JUDGMENT 10 the Plaintiff and the Defendant was not regulated by “V1”. Nor has the Plaintiff even at that stage produced the written ‘Agency Agreement’ which he says purportedly existed between the parties. In all these circumstances, “V1” must be regarded as the written contract that existed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. It is possible to accept the submission of learned President’s Counsel for the Plaintiff – Appellant that the Defendant was the Plaintiff’s ‘Distributor’ in Sri Lanka. However, whether the Defendant was the Plaintiff’s ‘Agent’ or ‘Distributor’ in Sri Lanka does not, in my view, make a significant difference to the determination of this Appeal. 36)I shall proceed to examine the evidence relating to this Appeal on the purported basis presented to the Commercial High Court by the Plaintiff – Appellant, that the three causes of action had arisen due to three different sums of monies due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff for “goods sold and delivered” and determine whether the Plaintiff had established one or more of the three causes of action averred in the Plaint. 37)It is therefore necessary to consider whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant (a) had a contractual relationship between the parties, (b) whether the Defendant had acted in breach of such agreement (may it be “V1” or any other), and if so, (c) whether such breach gave rise to the three causes of action pleaded in the Plaint. 38) The Plaintiff sought to prove the existence of a contractual relationship (i) through the conduct of the parties, (ii) nature of the transactions that existed, and (iii) associated documentation pertaining to such transactions. While seeking to prove the existence of a series of transactions relating to a contract between the parties pertaining to “goods sold and delivered” through such oral and documentary evidence is not prohibited by law, it must be noted that, particularly in today’s context, it is highly improbable to proceed on the footing that two contracting parties did not have a formal written agreement regulating their contractual relationship. That is particularly since (i) the contracting parties were corporate entities based in two different countries, (ii) a commercial contractual relationship is said to have existed between them, and (iii) the value of the several transactions was very high. Thus, I see merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Defendant – Respondent that the Plaintiff – Appellant had intentionally suppressed from the Commercial High Court the written agreement entered into between the parties (that being “V1”), and had done so, in fear that the clause SC APPEAL – SC/CHC 01/2014 - MEGA LIFESCIENCES LTD. VS. HARCOURTS (PVT.) LTD. - JUDGMENT 11 which conferred jurisdiction to Singaporean Courts pertaining to judicial adjudication of disputes would have led to a disadvantageous situation for the Plaintiff. This position is further reinforced by the principles governing the drawing of adverse inferences in relation to the non-production of evidence. 39)In S.C.B. Jayasinghe and others v. Kajima Corporation and others [SC (CHC) Appeal 104/2018, SC Minutes of 19th November 2025] I expressed agreement with the Judgment of my brother Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere, who expounded on the words by E. R. S. R. Coomaraswamy in “The Law of Evidence” [Volume II, Book I, page 397], by stating that the presumption in question arises in circumstances involving the withholding, spoliation, fabrication, or suppression of evidence. The underlying rationale is that the conduct of the party withholding such evidence may properly be attributed to a consciousness that, if produced, the evidence would operate adversely to that party. Further, in order to justify the drawing of such an unfavourable inference, it must be established that the evidence in question is in existence, is within the power of the party to produce, and has been deliberately withheld. What gives rise to the presumption is not the mere failure to adduce evidence, but the withholding of evidence which could and ought to have been produced. 40) Particularly since the Plaintiff – Appellant had not pleaded a written agreement that governed the contractual relationship between the parties and such agreement was not presented by the Plaintiff in evidence, it is necessary to very carefully examine the documentary evidence presented by the Plaintiff. Those documents are in clusters of documents marked “P5” to “P23” and documents connected thereto marked “P25” to “P44”. [The learned Judge of the High Court had rightfully held that the documents marked “P45(a)” to “P45(g)” purportedly being hard copies of certain electronic mails that were exchanged between the Plaintiff and the Defendant had not been proved according to law. In fact, during the appellate proceedings before this Court, learned President’s Counsel for the Appellant did not seriously challenge that finding.] Thus, I shall give my attention to only the series of documents marked and produced “P5” to “P23” and “P25” to “P45”. Of them too, the primary documents related to the series of transactions relied upon by the Plaintiff – Appellant were “P5” to “P23”. “P25” to “P45” contain further information relating to the transactions contained in “P5” to “P23”. SC APPEAL – SC/CHC 01/2014 - MEGA LIFESCIENCES LTD. VS. HARCOURTS (PVT.) LTD. - JUDGMENT 12 41) As observed by the learned Judge of the Commercial High Court, among the documents produced by the Plaintiff marked “P5” to “P23” are a series of documents, which put together, were referred to as evidence relating to the ‘running account’ between the parties. “P5” for example, constitutes a bundle of documents which can be described as follows: i. “P5” – An Invoice (No. 38/04/2005) dated 25th April 2005. Issued by Mega Products Limited. Signed for Mega Products Limited (undecipherable signature. Relates to 2,090 boxes of Ferrovit and 1,915 boxes of Vitacap, total valued at USD 9,450.90. Buyer – Harcourts (Private) Limited, Consignee – Harcourts (Private) Limited. ii. “P5(a)” – A Packing List (relating to Invoice No. 38/04/2005) dated 25th April 2005. Issued by Mega Products Limited. iii. “P5(b)” – Air Way Bill No. 160 – 53474875, dated 26th April 2005. Related to Invoice No. 38/04/2005 dated 25.04.2005. Shipper – Mega Products Limited. Consignee – Harcourts (Private) Limited. Issued by Harpers Freight Int’l Air Cargo Co. Ltd. iv. “P5(c)” – Marine Cargo Policy Certificate, No E109619. Issued in favour of – Mega Products Limited. Goods – relates to Invoice No. 38/04/2005 dated 25.04.2005. Marks & Nos. – Harcourts (Private) Limited. Issued by – ACE Insurance Limited. v. “P5(d)” – ‘Certificate of Analysis’ issued by Medicap Limited. Customer – Harcourts. Product: Vitacap. Manufactured on 09.03.2005. vi. “P5(e)” – ‘Certificate of Analysis’ issued by Medicap Limited. Customer – Harcourts. Product: Ferrovit. Manufactured on 28.03.2005. 42)It would thus be observed that documents “P5”, “P5(a)” to “P5(d)” relate to goods issued to the Defendant by Mega Products Ltd. Only “P5(d)” and “P5(e)” captioned ‘Certificate of Analysis’ can be reasonably inferred as having been issued by the Plaintiff’. The position regarding document bundles “P6” to “P23” is also the same. Other than the ‘Certificates of Analysis’, the remaining documents pertaining to the actual transactions reveal that the transacting parties were a company called ‘Mega Products Ltd.’ and the Defendant. 43) However, these documents do point to the direction that the goods in issue had been manufactured by Medicap Ltd. (the previous name of the Plaintiff). The ensuing inference being that certain goods manufactured by the Plaintiff were given to Mega Products Ltd., which sold such goods to the Defendant. SC APPEAL – SC/CHC 01/2014 - MEGA LIFESCIENCES LTD. VS. HARCOURTS (PVT.) LTD. - JUDGMENT 13 44) On the Plaintiff – Appellant’s own admission, ‘Mega Products Ltd.’ functioned as the ‘Distributor’ of the Plaintiff’s goods (ostensibly from the end of Thailand). Therefore, goods were channeled to the Defendant through such an intermediate company. In fact, the afore-mentioned documentary evidence supports that proposition. That gives rise to three contractual arrangements, which are as follows: i. Mega Lifesciences Ltd. (formerly Medicap Ltd.) and Mega Products Ltd. – Distributorship Agreement (not produced by the Plaintiff) ii. Mega Lifesciences Ltd. and Harcourts (Pvt.) Ltd. – Distributorship Agreement (produced by the Defendant attached to the answer - “V1”) [Clause 4 of “V1” specifically stated that the Defendant is appointed as its “Distributor for the importation, distribution and sale of the products…”.] iii. Mega Products Ltd. and Harcourts (Pvt.) Ltd. (Not produced by either the Plaintiff or the Defendant.) 45)It is important to note that the Plaintiff did not produce the ‘Distributorship’ agreement it had entered into with Mega Products Ltd. Furthermore, the Plaintiff also did not produce the purported ‘Agency’ agreement with the Defendant. 46) As described by C. G. Weeramantry in “The Law of Contracts” (Volume I, page 84), the basic constituent elements of a contract are: (a) an agreement between the parties; (b) the actual or presumed intention of the parties to create a legal obligation; (c) due observance of prescribed forms or modes of agreement; (d) legality and possibility of the object of the agreement; and (e) capacity of the parties to contract. 47)In view of such a triangular contractual relationship that appears to have existed between the Plaintiff, Mega Products Ltd., and the Defendant, with due consideration of the above stated prerequisites, it can be ascertained that the transaction pertaining to the “goods sold and delivered” appears to have been between Mega Products Ltd. and the Defendant. Thus, it is evident as to why the Defendant had issued the undertaking contained in “B”, which was unequivocally SC APPEAL – SC/CHC 01/2014 - MEGA LIFESCIENCES LTD. VS. HARCOURTS (PVT.) LTD. - JUDGMENT 14 towards Mega Products Ltd. and not towards the Plaintiff. That such undertaking did not arise out of the Distributorship agreement (“V1”) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is evident from the fact that, “V1” makes no reference to Mega Products Ltd. Thus, as pointed out by the learned Judge of the High Court, acknowledgement of monies being due from the Defendant (“B” / “P24”) is clearly towards Mega Products Ltd. and not towards the Plaintiff. Thus, the undertaking contained in “B” appears to be an undertaking separate and independent of the contractual relationship that had existed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Thus, if the Defendant had defaulted in fulfilling the undertaking as contained in “B”, it was the entitlement of Mega Products Ltd. to have sued the Defendant and not the Plaintiff’s entitlement. 48) Particularly since the Plaintiff relied extensively on document “B”, it is necessary to give detailed attention to it. The following features of that document are worthy of reproduction in this Judgment. i. Date: 28th July 2005 ii. Caption: “Agreement to Re-schedule payments to Mega Products (Bangkok) by Harcourts (Pvt) Ltd (Sri Lanka)” iii. First sentence: “As of 30/6/2005, there is a net amount overdue to be paid to Mega Products (Thailand) by Harcourts amounting to USD 157,387.12.” iv. Further sentences: “So the total dues to Mega amounts to USD 296,988 (United States Dollars) [157,387 + 139,601]” v. Signatories: “On behalf of Mega Products (Thailand) Thomas Abraham Chief Financial Officer …(signature)… 28/7/2005, 7.15 PM, Harcourts Tower, Colombo” and “On behalf of Harcourts Pvt Ltd Mr. Ahamed Rheyas Chairman & CEO …(signature)…” vi. The final page of document “B” (which for convenience shall be referred to as “B1” contains another undertaking. i. Date: 28th July 2005 ii. Caption: “Line Account Payments” iii. Contents: “All money due on line account will be paid against proper invoices produced by Mega Sri Lanka till the line account stocks are over. The balance money becoming due on line account shall be remitted to Mega Bangkok by Harcourts as per Mega’s instructions. …” iv. Signatories: Identical to the signatories of the principal document marked “B”. SC APPEAL – SC/CHC 01/2014 - MEGA LIFESCIENCES LTD. VS. HARCOURTS (PVT.) LTD. - JUDGMENT 15 49)It is clear that the undertaking contained in document “B” is from the Defendant to Mega Products Ltd., and not to the Plaintiff. The only common factor linking the Plaintiff to Mega Products Ltd. is Thomas Abraham, who appears to have been the Chief Financial Officer of both the Plaintiff company and Mega Products Ltd. However, it is quite possible that the two companies had one or more common officials, such as Thomas Abraham. Nevertheless, as the learned Judge of the Commercial High Court has pointed out, document “B” does not confer on the Plaintiff an entitlement in law to sue the Defendant company for the breach of the undertaking contained in that document. That is so evidently due to the fact that, Mega Products Ltd. (also referred to as ‘Mega Products Thailand’) is a company distinct from Mega Lifesciences Ltd. Furthermore, even when Thomas Abraham gave evidence, he has not even attempted to explain how the breach of the undertaking given by the Defendant to Mega Products Thailand became the basis for the Plaintiff to sue the Defendant. In fact, the contents of document “B” are quite tenable given the fact that the transactional documents “P5” to “P23” reveal that the goods were dispatched by Mega Products Ltd. and received by the Defendant. That is distinctly possible, notwithstanding the fact that it appears that the goods were manufactured by the Plaintiff. Therefore, I find myself in agreement with the finding reached by the learned Judge of the Commercial High Court that document “B” does not serve as a legal basis for the Plaintiff to sue the Defendant. If at all, the entitlement is for Mega Products Ltd. to sue the Defendant. However, such entitlement does not accrue to the benefit of the Plaintiff – Appellant. 50) The only other basis on which the Plaintiff’s case can be assessed is to consider whether documents “P4” to “P23” confer on the Plaintiff a legal basis to sue the defendant. As pointed out before, other than the series of documents captioned “Certificate of Analysis” the remaining documents reveal that the party which dispatched the goods from Thailand to Sri Lanka (which goods undoubtedly was received by the Defendant was Mega Products Ltd. Even otherwise, even if this Court were to accept the principal submission of the learned President’s Counsel for the Plaintiff – Appellant that “P5” to “P23” is proof of the Plaintiff having transacted directly with the Defendant, since these documents are admittedly documents relating to “goods sold and delivered”. I must consider whether the claim of the Plaintiff had been prescribed as at the time the action was instituted. SC APPEAL – SC/CHC 01/2014 - MEGA LIFESCIENCES LTD. VS. HARCOURTS (PVT.) LTD. - JUDGMENT 16 51) Section 8 of the Prescription Ordinance provides as follows: “No action shall be maintainable for or in respect of any goods sold and delivered, or for any shop bill or book debt, or for work and labour done, or for the wages of artisans, labourers, or servants, unless the same shall be brought within one year after the debt shall have become due.” [Emphasis added by me.] As observed by the learned Judge of the High Court, in terms of section 8 of the Prescription Ordinance, claims arising out of such transactions become prescribed in 1 year. 52) Moreover, in Capital Printpack (Private) Limited v. Wijitha Group of Companies (Private) Limited, [SC/Appeal/21/2017, Supreme Court Minutes of 9th June 2023], Justice Janak De Silva provides detailed clarifications of sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Prescription Ordinance and their respective applications, affirming that an action “for or in respect of any goods sold and delivered” based on an unwritten contract falls squarely within the ambit of section 8 and is thus subject to a prescriptive period of one year. 53) Thus, as rightly pointed out by the learned Judge of the Commercial High Court and by learned Counsel for the Defendant – Respondent, the claim presented on the strength of “P5” to “P23” had been prescribed by the time action was instituted in the High Court and was therefore non-actionable. Thus, it is noted as to why learned President’s Counsel for the Plaintiff – Appellant commenced and concluded his submissions, drawing attention of this Court to the purported undertaking contained in “B” (“P24”), as such written undertaking would have extended the applicable prescriptive period. However, as noted above, “B” is not an undertaking given by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. 54) Due to the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the Plaintiff – Appellant has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities a factual and legal basis for the three causes of action contained in the Plaint. Therefore, I find myself in complete agreement with the decision of the learned Judge of the Commercial High Court in dismissing the Plaint. SC APPEAL – SC/CHC 01/2014 - MEGA LIFESCIENCES LTD. VS. HARCOURTS (PVT.) LTD. - JUDGMENT 17 Outcome of the Appeal 55)In view of the foregoing, this Appeal is dismissed. 56) The Defendant – Respondent shall be entitled to recover the cost of litigation before this Court from the Plaintiff – Appellant. Judge of the Supreme Court Arjuna Obeyesekere, J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court K. Priyantha Fernando, J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court 📄 Download
29 Apr 2026 SC/APPEAL/67/2014
Hapan Pedige Abetunga, 5, L.B. 01, Somapura, Seruwila. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT - APPELLANT -Vs Central Finance Company PLC, 54, King Street, Kandy. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT Hapan Pedige Abetunga, 5, L.B. 01, Somapura, Seruwila. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT - APPELLANT -Vs Central Finance Company PLC, 54, King Street, Kandy. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
29 Apr 2026 SC/APPEAL/93/2020
The Young Men’s Buddhist Association Colombo, 70, D.S. Senanayake Mawatha, Colombo 08. APPELLANT - APPELLANT -Vs- Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT The Young Men’s Buddhist Association Colombo, 70, D.S. Senanayake Mawatha, Colombo 08. APPELLANT - APPELLANT -Vs- Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
29 Apr 2026 SC/FR/85/2022
Thalangama Appuhamilage Chathuranga Dissanayake, Sri Rahula Mawatha, Mahawa. PETITIONER -Vs- 1. Gajanayake Kankanamlage Methsiri Fernando Gajanayake, Officer in Charge, Traffic Unit, Marawila Police Station, Puttalam. 2. Kulathunga Hettiarachchige Samantha, Human Resource Management Division, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 3. Sarukkalige Nilan Prasanga, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. 4. Premadasa, Acting Officer in Charge, Warakapola Police Station, Warakapola. 5. Senadheera, Officer in Charge, Warakapola Police Station, Warakapola. 6. Kariyawasam Ampegama Gamage Aruna Deepal Kariyawasam, 38, Udugoda, Ruggahawila, Nittambuwa. 7. Agosignnolage Nishantha Damindamal, 2/5, Second Phase, Hermanwatta, Dodangoda. 8. H.D.S. Thusith Kumara, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Sri Lanka Police, Gampaha District. 9. The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 10. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS Thalangama Appuhamilage Chathuranga Dissanayake, Sri Rahula Mawatha, Mahawa. PETITIONER -Vs- 1. Gajanayake Kankanamlage Methsiri Fernando Gajanayake, Officer in Charge, Traffic Unit, Marawila Police Station, Puttalam. 2. Kulathunga Hettiarachchige Samantha, Human Resource Management Division, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 3. Sarukkalige Nilan Prasanga, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. 4. Premadasa, Acting Officer in Charge, Warakapola Police Station, Warakapola. 5. Senadheera, Officer in Charge, Warakapola Police Station, Warakapola. 6. Kariyawasam Ampegama Gamage Aruna Deepal Kariyawasam, 38, Udugoda, Ruggahawila, Nittambuwa. 7. Agosignnolage Nishantha Damindamal, 2/5, Second Phase, Hermanwatta, Dodangoda. 8. H.D.S. Thusith Kumara, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Sri Lanka Police, Gampaha District. 9. The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 10. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
29 Apr 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/54/2019
The Finance and Guarantee Company Limited, No. 36/A, Sir Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 07. ( Presently known as U. B. Finance Company Limited having its Registered Office at No. 10 Daisy Villa Avenue, Colombo 04.) 1 ST DEFENDANT APPELLANT v s. Malabage Indika Damayanthi Sigera, No. 752/98, “Country Homes”, Dambagahawatta Road, Thalahena, Malabe. PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT 2. The Finance and Guarantee Property Developments Limited, No. 24, Sir Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 07. Presently at: No. 46/46, 2 nd Floor, Green Lanka Towers Building, Nawam Mawatha, Colombo 02. 2 ND DEFENDANT RESPONDENT The Finance and Guarantee Company Limited, No. 36/A, Sir Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 07. ( Presently known as U. B. Finance Company Limited having its Registered Office at No. 10 Daisy Villa Avenue, Colombo 04.) 1 ST DEFENDANT APPELLANT v s. Malabage Indika Damayanthi Sigera, No. 752/98, “Country Homes”, Dambagahawatta Road, Thalahena, Malabe. PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT 2. The Finance and Guarantee Property Developments Limited, No. 24, Sir Marcus Fernando Mawatha, Colombo 07. Presently at: No. 46/46, 2 nd Floor, Green Lanka Towers Building, Nawam Mawatha, Colombo 02. 2 ND DEFENDANT RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon.Justice K.M.G.H.Kulatunga 📄 Download
29 Apr 2026 SC/APPEAL/169/2025
Sri Lanka Transport Board, No. 200, Kirula Road, Narahenpita, Colombo. RESPONDENT RESPONDENT APPELLANT v s. P. D. Premasiri, Depot Road, Kekirawa. APPLICANT APPELLANT RESPONDENT Sri Lanka Transport Board, No. 200, Kirula Road, Narahenpita, Colombo. RESPONDENT RESPONDENT APPELLANT v s. P. D. Premasiri, Depot Road, Kekirawa. APPLICANT APPELLANT RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon.Justice K.M.G.H.Kulatunga 📄 Download
29 Apr 2026 SC/FR/278/2023
1. W.M. Chandrapala, \"Wellassa,\" Galgamuwa, Miyaththalawa, Inginiyagala. 2. D.G. Anil Pradeep Kumara, No.42, Madugama, Siyabalanduwa. 3. R.W.W.N.R. Rajapaksha, Pasala Idiripita, Karawila, Bandalkumbura. 4. D.M. Sanjeewa Sampath Gunasekara, No.19/2, Waragama, Buddama, Monaragala. 5. R.M.A. Kumara Bandara No.128, Kotiyagala, Monaragala. 6. S. Harikaran, Muththaiya Road, Vattiweli, Pothuvil. 7. T.G. Aruna Shantha, Ambagahakanda, Panapola, Kalawana. 8. W.A. Chanaka Ruwan Gunapala, EN. 9/3 B. Uhana Road, Karangawa, Ampara. 9. N. Malinda Priyamal Nawalage, Kalugasyaya, Siyabalanduwa, Monaragala. 10. J.P. Sanjeewa Priyankara, Maldam Abhaya, Pitakumbura, Bibila. 11. D.M. Ajith Kumara, No.88, Balagolla, Buddama, Monaragala. 12. R.M. Nilantha Athulasiri Bandara, No.76, Kotiyagala, Monaragala. 13. K.M. Jeewan Kanchana Nawoddya Kumara, 1 B. 45 Katagara, Namaloya, Ampara 14. T.B. Chandrarathna, Serawa, Pitakumbura, Bibila. 15. D.M. Chandupani Dissanayake, 401/C, Bant Road, Inginiyagala. 16. Ruwani Sanjeewa Witharana, 88/B, Hospital Road, Inginiyagala. AND OTHERS 1. W.M. Chandrapala, \"Wellassa,\" Galgamuwa, Miyaththalawa, Inginiyagala. 2. D.G. Anil Pradeep Kumara, No.42, Madugama, Siyabalanduwa. 3. R.W.W.N.R. Rajapaksha, Pasala Idiripita, Karawila, Bandalkumbura. 4. D.M. Sanjeewa Sampath Gunasekara, No.19/2, Waragama, Buddama, Monaragala. 5. R.M.A. Kumara Bandara No.128, Kotiyagala, Monaragala. 6. S. Harikaran, Muththaiya Road, Vattiweli, Pothuvil. 7. T.G. Aruna Shantha, Ambagahakanda, Panapola, Kalawana. 8. W.A. Chanaka Ruwan Gunapala, EN. 9/3 B. Uhana Road, Karangawa, Ampara. 9. N. Malinda Priyamal Nawalage, Kalugasyaya, Siyabalanduwa, Monaragala. 10. J.P. Sanjeewa Priyankara, Maldam Abhaya, Pitakumbura, Bibila. 11. D.M. Ajith Kumara, No.88, Balagolla, Buddama, Monaragala. 12. R.M. Nilantha Athulasiri Bandara, No.76, Kotiyagala, Monaragala. 13. K.M. Jeewan Kanchana Nawoddya Kumara, 1 B. 45 Katagara, Namaloya, Ampara 14. T.B. Chandrarathna, Serawa, Pitakumbura, Bibila. 15. D.M. Chandupani Dissanayake, 401/C, Bant Road, Inginiyagala. 16. Ruwani Sanjeewa Witharana, 88/B, Hospital Road, Inginiyagala. AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon. Justice Janak De Silva In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 17 and Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 📄 Download
29 Apr 2026 SC/SPL LA/204/2024
1. Podujana-Progressive Employees Union, No. 1316, Nelum Mawatha, Jayanthipura, Battaramulla. 2. S.A.R. Rasanga, The Secretary (NARA Branch), Podujana-Progressive Employees Union, Mattakkuliya, Colombo 15. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency, Crow Island, Colombo 15. 2. Prof. M.J.S. Wijeyaratne, Chairman, National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency, Crow Island, Colombo 15. 3. Dr. Kamal Tennakoon, Director General, National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency, Crow Island, Colombo 15. 4. Mrs. Indu Rathnayake, The Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. 5. Mr. Selvendran Salivan de Marian, No. 17/2, Uyarappulam, Anaikoddai, Jaffna. 6. Mr. Gizal Chinthana de Silva, No. 3/9, Railway Station Road, Colombo 04. 7. Mr. N.M.P. Chaminda Fernando, No. 90, Pallansena Road, Kochchikade. 8. Prof. Upali S. Amarasinghe, No. 55/D/3, Ranmuthugala Gardens, Kirillawala, Kadawatha. 9. Dr. (Mrs.) J.M. Asoka, No. 59/9, Temple Road, Colombo 10. 10. Mr. A.P. Kurumbalapitiya, Additional Director General (Acting), Department of Management Audit, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 11. Rear Admiral K.A.P.S.K. Kariyapperuma, Commander (South Eastern Naval Area), Chief Hydrographer, Navy Headquarters, Colombo 01. 12. Mr. S.J. Kahawatta, Additional Director General (Acting), Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. 13. Mr. A. Dissanayake, Survey General, Department of Survey, No. 150, Kirula Road, Narahenpita. 14. Mr. T.A.C.N. Thalangama, Additional Secretary, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. 15. Ms. K.N. Kumari Somaratne, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Port and Shipping, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 16. Mrs. M.M.G.K. Meegahakotuwa, Director General (Planning), State Ministry of Development Vocational Educational Research & Innovation, 3rd Floor, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 17. Mrs. B.A. Damayanthi, Senior Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. 18. Mrs. Champika Hewage, 19. Mr. Samantha Wijesinghe, 20. Mrs. K.D.K.N. Kumari, 18th to 20th Respondents of Ministry of Fisheries, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. AND OTHERS 1. Podujana-Progressive Employees Union, No. 1316, Nelum Mawatha, Jayanthipura, Battaramulla. 2. S.A.R. Rasanga, The Secretary (NARA Branch), Podujana-Progressive Employees Union, Mattakkuliya, Colombo 15. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency, Crow Island, Colombo 15. 2. Prof. M.J.S. Wijeyaratne, Chairman, National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency, Crow Island, Colombo 15. 3. Dr. Kamal Tennakoon, Director General, National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency, Crow Island, Colombo 15. 4. Mrs. Indu Rathnayake, The Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. 5. Mr. Selvendran Salivan de Marian, No. 17/2, Uyarappulam, Anaikoddai, Jaffna. 6. Mr. Gizal Chinthana de Silva, No. 3/9, Railway Station Road, Colombo 04. 7. Mr. N.M.P. Chaminda Fernando, No. 90, Pallansena Road, Kochchikade. 8. Prof. Upali S. Amarasinghe, No. 55/D/3, Ranmuthugala Gardens, Kirillawala, Kadawatha. 9. Dr. (Mrs.) J.M. Asoka, No. 59/9, Temple Road, Colombo 10. 10. Mr. A.P. Kurumbalapitiya, Additional Director General (Acting), Department of Management Audit, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 11. Rear Admiral K.A.P.S.K. Kariyapperuma, Commander (South Eastern Naval Area), Chief Hydrographer, Navy Headquarters, Colombo 01. 12. Mr. S.J. Kahawatta, Additional Director General (Acting), Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. 13. Mr. A. Dissanayake, Survey General, Department of Survey, No. 150, Kirula Road, Narahenpita. 14. Mr. T.A.C.N. Thalangama, Additional Secretary, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. 15. Ms. K.N. Kumari Somaratne, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Port and Shipping, No. 19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 01. 16. Mrs. M.M.G.K. Meegahakotuwa, Director General (Planning), State Ministry of Development Vocational Educational Research & Innovation, 3rd Floor, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 17. Mrs. B.A. Damayanthi, Senior Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. 18. Mrs. Champika Hewage, 19. Mr. Samantha Wijesinghe, 20. Mrs. K.D.K.N. Kumari, 18th to 20th Respondents of Ministry of Fisheries, New Secretariat, Maligawatta, Colombo 10. AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon. Justice Janak De Silva In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal under and in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 📄 Download
02 Apr 2026 SC/FR/190/2023
R. M. Saman Kumara 96/1, Hendrikka Waththa, Diddeniya, Hanwella. Petitioner Vs. 1. Kariyawasam Haputhanthrige Prabhashana Bashitha Nayananjana Police Station, Hanwella. 2. Kande Badalge Suranga Sisira Kumara Police Station, Hanwella. 3. Amila Govinna Officer in Charge, Police Station, Hanwella. 3A. G. U. Wasantha Kumara, Officer in Charge, Police Station, Hanwella. 4. C. D. Wickremaratne Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 4A. Priyantha Weerasooriya Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 5. Kapila Kadupitiya Deputy Inspector General of Police of the Western Province South, Mirihana, Nugegoda. 6. Honorable Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents R. M. Saman Kumara 96/1, Hendrikka Waththa, Diddeniya, Hanwella. Petitioner Vs. 1. Kariyawasam Haputhanthrige Prabhashana Bashitha Nayananjana Police Station, Hanwella. 2. Kande Badalge Suranga Sisira Kumara Police Station, Hanwella. 3. Amila Govinna Officer in Charge, Police Station, Hanwella. 3A. G. U. Wasantha Kumara, Officer in Charge, Police Station, Hanwella. 4. C. D. Wickremaratne Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 4A. Priyantha Weerasooriya Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 5. Kapila Kadupitiya Deputy Inspector General of Police of the Western Province South, Mirihana, Nugegoda. 6. Honorable Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne In the matter of an application in respect of the violation of fundamental Rights in terms of Article 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 📄 Download
02 Apr 2026 SC/APPEAL/85/2022
Imbulana Liyanage Dharmawardana, No. 145/53, Walawuwatta, Weliweriya. ACCUSED-APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF Vs. Director General, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, No. 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT Imbulana Liyanage Dharmawardana, No. 145/53, Walawuwatta, Weliweriya. ACCUSED-APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF Vs. Director General, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, No. 36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon 📄 Download
02 Apr 2026 SC/APPEAL/59/2015
W.D. Somasiri, Udakandawala, Melsiripura. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Vs B.M. Weerakoon Banda, Kalugahakumbura, Udakandawela, Malsiripura. 2ND DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT E.M. Seelawathie, Nugagaha Yatin Yana Road, Naabata, Melsiripura. 1ST DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT W.D. Somasiri, Udakandawala, Melsiripura. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Vs B.M. Weerakoon Banda, Kalugahakumbura, Udakandawela, Malsiripura. 2ND DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT E.M. Seelawathie, Nugagaha Yatin Yana Road, Naabata, Melsiripura. 1ST DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere In the matter of an appeal under and in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read with Section 5C(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 19 of 1990, as amended 📄 Download
02 Apr 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/53/2008
Ranjith Sumanasekera No. 411/20, Attygalla Mawatha, Welikada, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff – Appellant v. AIA Insurance Lanka PLC [Previously known as the “Eagle Insurance Company Limited” and during the High Court proceedings, cited under that name.] No. 75, Kumaran Ratnam Mawatha, Colombo 2. Defendant – Respondent (re-named) Ranjith Sumanasekera No. 411/20, Attygalla Mawatha, Welikada, Rajagiriya. Plaintiff – Appellant v. AIA Insurance Lanka PLC [Previously known as the “Eagle Insurance Company Limited” and during the High Court proceedings, cited under that name.] No. 75, Kumaran Ratnam Mawatha, Colombo 2. Defendant – Respondent (re-named)
⚖ Hon. Justice Yasantha Kodagoda, PC In the nature of an Appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 128 of the Constitution read with provisions of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 10 of 1996. 📄 Download
02 Apr 2026 SC/APPEAL/253/2014
Pani Pachchalage Somawathi Peellakumbura, Maddakanda, Balangoda. Defendant –Respondent –Appellant vs. Watukarage Piyadasa Peellakumbura, Maddakanda, Balangoda. Plaintiff –Appellant –Respondent Pani Pachchalage Somawathi Peellakumbura, Maddakanda, Balangoda. Defendant –Respondent –Appellant vs. Watukarage Piyadasa Peellakumbura, Maddakanda, Balangoda. Plaintiff –Appellant –Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Yasantha Kodagoda, PC In the nature of an Appeal under and in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution. 📄 Download
02 Apr 2026 SC/APPEAL/62/2024
Dharmakeerthige Dikhene Gedara Wasantha Kumara Sirisena Dikhena, Makulemada, Appearing through his power of attorney holder Dharmakeerthi Devage Dikhene Gedara Dhammika Nalinda Sirisena 178/1, Kandy Road, Kohóbiliwela, Matale PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. Dayarathna Wedagedara No. 103, Udawehigala, Matale DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT Dharmakeerthige Dikhene Gedara Wasantha Kumara Sirisena Dikhena, Makulemada, Appearing through his power of attorney holder Dharmakeerthi Devage Dikhene Gedara Dhammika Nalinda Sirisena 178/1, Kandy Road, Kohóbiliwela, Matale PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. Dayarathna Wedagedara No. 103, Udawehigala, Matale DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Section 5(C) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006 read with Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 📄 Download
31 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/103/2019
Kuruppu Mudiyanselage Dayaratne, Godagama, Mawanella. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. D.M. Sumanaratna Banda, Aranayaka Road, Mawanella. 1st Defendant-Appellant-Respondent 1A. Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage Sandya Kodithuwakku, 1B. Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage Chandima, 1C. Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage Indra Dissanayaka, 1D. Kamalawathie Dissanayaka, 1E. Manoratna Acharilage Dingiri Amma, All of Aranayaka Road, Mawanalla. Substituted 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E Defendant-Appellant-Respondents 2. Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage Kapilaratne, No. 12, Tennekubura, Maha Nuwara. 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Respondent Wickremasinghe Mudiyanselage Ananda Kotadeniya, No.71, Mawana Road, Mawanella. Substituted 2A Defendant-Respondent- Respondent Kuruppu Mudiyanselage Dayaratne, Godagama, Mawanella. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. D.M. Sumanaratna Banda, Aranayaka Road, Mawanella. 1st Defendant-Appellant-Respondent 1A. Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage Sandya Kodithuwakku, 1B. Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage Chandima, 1C. Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage Indra Dissanayaka, 1D. Kamalawathie Dissanayaka, 1E. Manoratna Acharilage Dingiri Amma, All of Aranayaka Road, Mawanalla. Substituted 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E Defendant-Appellant-Respondents 2. Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage Kapilaratne, No. 12, Tennekubura, Maha Nuwara. 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Respondent Wickremasinghe Mudiyanselage Ananda Kotadeniya, No.71, Mawana Road, Mawanella. Substituted 2A Defendant-Respondent- Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
31 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/158/2025
Attorney-General, Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Thennakoon Mudiyanselage Janaka Bandara Thennakoon, Member of Parliament, Matale Road, Dambulla. Accused-Petitioner-Respondent. Attorney-General, Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Thennakoon Mudiyanselage Janaka Bandara Thennakoon, Member of Parliament, Matale Road, Dambulla. Accused-Petitioner-Respondent.
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
31 Mar 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/76/2018
J. M. Wijeratne, No.120, Kandalama Road, Dambulla. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Ceylon Grain Elevators PLC, No. 15, Rock House Lane, Colombo 15. Plaintiff-Respondent J. M. Wijeratne, No.120, Kandalama Road, Dambulla. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Ceylon Grain Elevators PLC, No. 15, Rock House Lane, Colombo 15. Plaintiff-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
31 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/13/2024
Rajaguru Mudiyanselage Muthubanda Rajaguru, No. 164, Barandana Road, Mawathagama. PLAINTIFF – APPEALLNT – PETITIONER – PETITIONER – [APPELLANT] vs 2. Lapaya Dewayalage Punchina alias Podina of Thimbirigahakanaththa, Maralanda, Mawathagama. 2 nd DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT – [RESPONDENT] 1. Hewadewage Katharine, Sudarshana Mawatha, Nelligahamullathenna, Mawathagama. 2. Lapaya Dewayalage Wasantha Malani, 92/3, Ahasyana Pitiya, Mawathagama. 3. Prasanna Sanjeewa Wijayapala, 92/3, Ahasyana Pitiya, Mawathagama. RESPONDENTS Rajaguru Mudiyanselage Muthubanda Rajaguru, No. 164, Barandana Road, Mawathagama. PLAINTIFF – APPEALLNT – PETITIONER – PETITIONER – [APPELLANT] vs 2. Lapaya Dewayalage Punchina alias Podina of Thimbirigahakanaththa, Maralanda, Mawathagama. 2 nd DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT – [RESPONDENT] 1. Hewadewage Katharine, Sudarshana Mawatha, Nelligahamullathenna, Mawathagama. 2. Lapaya Dewayalage Wasantha Malani, 92/3, Ahasyana Pitiya, Mawathagama. 3. Prasanna Sanjeewa Wijayapala, 92/3, Ahasyana Pitiya, Mawathagama. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath K. B. Wijeratne 📄 Download
31 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/166/2013
(Deceased) Thuduwa Hewage Sumathipala, No.284/A. Walgama, Welmilla Junction. Defendant-Petitioner-Petitioner -Appellant Madappuligedara Wasala Mudiyanselage Podimanike No. 284/A/2, Walgama Junction, Bandaragama. Substituted-Defendant-Petitioner -Petitioner-Appellant Vs. (Now Deceased) Bamunusinghe Arachchige Lal Gunarathne Peiris, Walgama, Batapota, Bandaragama. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent A. Palligoda Arachchige Ramani Jayawardena, Walgama, Batapota, Bandaragama. B. Bamunusinghe Arachchige Sandeep Gunaratne Peiris, No.25/2, Palligoda, Polgampola. C. Bamunusinghe Arachchige Ruvini Gunaratne Peiris, Walgama, Batapota, Bandaragama. Substituted-Plaintiff-Respondent Respondent-Respondents The Divisional Secretary Divisional Secretariat, Bandaragama. Added-Respondent-Respondent (Deceased) Thuduwa Hewage Sumathipala, No.284/A. Walgama, Welmilla Junction. Defendant-Petitioner-Petitioner -Appellant Madappuligedara Wasala Mudiyanselage Podimanike No. 284/A/2, Walgama Junction, Bandaragama. Substituted-Defendant-Petitioner -Petitioner-Appellant Vs. (Now Deceased) Bamunusinghe Arachchige Lal Gunarathne Peiris, Walgama, Batapota, Bandaragama. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent A. Palligoda Arachchige Ramani Jayawardena, Walgama, Batapota, Bandaragama. B. Bamunusinghe Arachchige Sandeep Gunaratne Peiris, No.25/2, Palligoda, Polgampola. C. Bamunusinghe Arachchige Ruvini Gunaratne Peiris, Walgama, Batapota, Bandaragama. Substituted-Plaintiff-Respondent Respondent-Respondents The Divisional Secretary Divisional Secretariat, Bandaragama. Added-Respondent-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli In the matter of an Appeal under Section 5C of the Provincial High Court (Special Provisions) Act No. 1990 as amended by Act No.55 of 2006 read with Article 127 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 📄 Download
31 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/103/2021
Karunadhipathi Mudiyanselage, Karunathilaka, Kawudumunna, Ihala katugampala. Claimant Appellant Petitioner - Appellant Vs. 1. Officer in Charge, Police Station, Pannala. Complainant Respondent - Respondent 2. Honourable Attorney General, Department of the Attorney General, Colombo 12. Respondent Respondent Karunadhipathi Mudiyanselage, Karunathilaka, Kawudumunna, Ihala katugampala. Claimant Appellant Petitioner - Appellant Vs. 1. Officer in Charge, Police Station, Pannala. Complainant Respondent - Respondent 2. Honourable Attorney General, Department of the Attorney General, Colombo 12. Respondent Respondent
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
31 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/86/2022
Ahangoda Acharige Karunalatha Rathnaweera No.111, Quarry Road, Dehiwala. Plaintiff-Petitioner (Deceased) Vishwanath Ratnaweera No.1/A \"Araliya\" Piligala Road, Yalegoda, Handessa. (Appearing through his Power of Attorney holder) Upali Senadara Dharmawardena No.67, Prathibimbarama Road, Dehiwala. Substituted-Plaintiff-Petitioner- Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Janitha Dilrukshi Kavitilake No.30, Vimala Vihara Road, Nawala. (Presently at No. 107/15, Rabel Place, Galvihara Road, Dehiwala.) 1st Defendant- Respondent- Petitioner-Respondent Premanath Dayananda Ratnaweera No.111, Quarry Road, Dehiwala. 2nd Defendant-Respondent -Respondent-Respondent Ahangoda Acharige Karunalatha Rathnaweera No.111, Quarry Road, Dehiwala. Plaintiff-Petitioner (Deceased) Vishwanath Ratnaweera No.1/A \"Araliya\" Piligala Road, Yalegoda, Handessa. (Appearing through his Power of Attorney holder) Upali Senadara Dharmawardena No.67, Prathibimbarama Road, Dehiwala. Substituted-Plaintiff-Petitioner- Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Janitha Dilrukshi Kavitilake No.30, Vimala Vihara Road, Nawala. (Presently at No. 107/15, Rabel Place, Galvihara Road, Dehiwala.) 1st Defendant- Respondent- Petitioner-Respondent Premanath Dayananda Ratnaweera No.111, Quarry Road, Dehiwala. 2nd Defendant-Respondent -Respondent-Respondent
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
31 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/159/2019
Hewa Hawarige Pedrick Fernando, Mohoriya, Andigama. Substituted-Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. 2. Karunagamage Sirilak Ruwan Jayaweera, No.45A,Mailawalana Road, Kirindiwela. 4A. Karunagamage Ramani Pushpakanthi, No.135/2, Bodimangalarama Road, Paththalagedara, Veyangoda. 2nd and 4A Defendant-Appellants 1B. Kadinappulige Premathilake, No.30A, Mailawalana,, Kirindiwela. 1B Defendant-Respondent 3. Karunagamage Srimathie Padmakanthi Jayaweera, No.45 A,Mailawalana Road, Kirindiwela. 3rd Defendant-Respondent Hewa Hawarige Pedrick Fernando, Mohoriya, Andigama. Substituted-Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. 2. Karunagamage Sirilak Ruwan Jayaweera, No.45A,Mailawalana Road, Kirindiwela. 4A. Karunagamage Ramani Pushpakanthi, No.135/2, Bodimangalarama Road, Paththalagedara, Veyangoda. 2nd and 4A Defendant-Appellants 1B. Kadinappulige Premathilake, No.30A, Mailawalana,, Kirindiwela. 1B Defendant-Respondent 3. Karunagamage Srimathie Padmakanthi Jayaweera, No.45 A,Mailawalana Road, Kirindiwela. 3rd Defendant-Respondent
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
31 Mar 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/20/2012
Ceylon Paper Sacks (Private) Limited, No. 47, Maligawa Road, Etul Kotte. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Michael Laurents Cyrille Caderamanpulle, No. 15/5, Victoria Place, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 08. (Deceased) Joseph Romesh Shehan Caderamanpulle, No. 33, Boran Road, Cofield, Victoria 3162, Australia. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent Ceylon Paper Sacks (Private) Limited, No. 47, Maligawa Road, Etul Kotte. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Michael Laurents Cyrille Caderamanpulle, No. 15/5, Victoria Place, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 08. (Deceased) Joseph Romesh Shehan Caderamanpulle, No. 33, Boran Road, Cofield, Victoria 3162, Australia. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
31 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/84/2019
1. Nimal G. Punchihewa, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, C 82, Hector Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Colombo 07. RESPONDENT – APPELLANT 2. S. Thambugala, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, C 82, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 07. SUBSTITUTED RESPONDENT – APPELLANT 3(A). Sampath Subasinghe Arachchi, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. SUBSTITUTED RESPONDENT – APPELLANT 3(B). Sirimevan Dias, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. SUBSTITUTED RESPONDENT – APPELLANT 3(C). Nilantha Wijesinghe, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. SUBSTITUTED RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Kelani Valley Plantation PLC., (Formally Kelani Valley Plantation Limited), 400, Deans Road, Colombo 10. PETITIONER – RESPONDENT 1. Nimal G. Punchihewa, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, C 82, Hector Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Colombo 07. RESPONDENT – APPELLANT 2. S. Thambugala, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, C 82, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 07. SUBSTITUTED RESPONDENT – APPELLANT 3(A). Sampath Subasinghe Arachchi, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. SUBSTITUTED RESPONDENT – APPELLANT 3(B). Sirimevan Dias, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. SUBSTITUTED RESPONDENT – APPELLANT 3(C). Nilantha Wijesinghe, Chairman, Land Reform Commission, 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. SUBSTITUTED RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Kelani Valley Plantation PLC., (Formally Kelani Valley Plantation Limited), 400, Deans Road, Colombo 10. PETITIONER – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
31 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/19/2012
2 (1) Kapugama Wansagamage Dona Murin, 3A, 6th Lane, Pagoda, Nugegoda. (1A) Muthukuda Arachchige Sriyani Peiris (1Ai) Buthpitiya Lekamge Don Gamini (1Aii)Buthpitiya Lekamge Madhura Buddhika Niroshan (1Aiii)Buthpitiya Lekamge Don Asanka Madhujith 1A, 1Ai, 1Aii, 1Aiii at 1219/81, Elsevana, Walpita Road, Batawala. (1B) Muthukuda Arachchige Wasantha Peiris, 856, A1 Kurunuduwatte Road, Gonawela, Kelaniya. (1C) Muthukuda Arachchige Rohana Jayasiri Peiris, 85/13, Gonahena, Weboda. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANTS - Vs - (1) Ranatunga Arachchige Chandra (1A) Nandasena Ranatunga (1B) Dayananda Ranatunga (1C) Sirimal Ranatunga (1D) Chandra Ranatunga All at, 133, Maguruwila Road, Gonawela, Kelaniya. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENTS 2 (1) Kapugama Wansagamage Dona Murin, 3A, 6th Lane, Pagoda, Nugegoda. (1A) Muthukuda Arachchige Sriyani Peiris (1Ai) Buthpitiya Lekamge Don Gamini (1Aii)Buthpitiya Lekamge Madhura Buddhika Niroshan (1Aiii)Buthpitiya Lekamge Don Asanka Madhujith 1A, 1Ai, 1Aii, 1Aiii at 1219/81, Elsevana, Walpita Road, Batawala. (1B) Muthukuda Arachchige Wasantha Peiris, 856, A1 Kurunuduwatte Road, Gonawela, Kelaniya. (1C) Muthukuda Arachchige Rohana Jayasiri Peiris, 85/13, Gonahena, Weboda. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANTS - Vs - (1) Ranatunga Arachchige Chandra (1A) Nandasena Ranatunga (1B) Dayananda Ranatunga (1C) Sirimal Ranatunga (1D) Chandra Ranatunga All at, 133, Maguruwila Road, Gonawela, Kelaniya. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an appeal under and in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read with Section 5C(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 19 of 1990, as amended SC Appeal No. 19/2012 SC Spl LA No. 163/2010 CA No. 1278/2002 (F) DC Colombo Case No. 15602/L Ranatunga Arachchige Chandra, 133, Maguruwila Road, Gonawela, Kelaniya. PLAINTIFF - Vs - Kapugama Wansagamage Dona Murin, 3A, 6th Lane, Pagoda, Nugegoda DEFENDANT And between Kapugama Wansagamage Dona Murin, 3A, 6th Lane, Pagoda, Nugegoda DEFENDANT – APPELLANT - Vs - Ranatunga Arachchige Chandra, 133, Maguruwila Road, Gonawela, Kelaniya. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT And now between 2 (1) Kapugama Wansagamage Dona Murin, 3A, 6th Lane, Pagoda, Nugegoda. (1A) Muthukuda Arachchige Sriyani Peiris (1Ai) Buthpitiya Lekamge Don Gamini (1Aii)Buthpitiya Lekamge Madhura Buddhika Niroshan (1Aiii)Buthpitiya Lekamge Don Asanka Madhujith 1A, 1Ai, 1Aii, 1Aiii at 1219/81, Elsevana, Walpita Road, Batawala. (1B) Muthukuda Arachchige Wasantha Peiris, 856, A1 Kurunuduwatte Road, Gonawela, Kelaniya. (1C) Muthukuda Arachchige Rohana Jayasiri Peiris, 85/13, Gonahena, Weboda. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANTS - Vs - (1) Ranatunga Arachchige Chandra (1A) Nandasena Ranatunga (1B) Dayananda Ranatunga (1C) Sirimal Ranatunga (1D) Chandra Ranatunga All at, 133, Maguruwila Road, Gonawela, Kelaniya. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENTS 3 Before: Kumudini Wickremasinghe, J Arjuna Obeyesekere, J M. Sampath K.B. Wijeratne, J Counsel: Manohara De Silva, PC with Hirosha Munasinghe for the Substituted Defendant – Appellant – Appellants Rohan Sahabandu, PC with Chathurika Elvitigala for the Substituted Plaintiff – Respondent – Respondents Argued on: 23rd May 2025 Written Tendered on behalf of the Substituted Defendant – Appellant – Submissions: Appellants on 8th March 2012 and 4th July 2025 Tendered on behalf of the Substituted Plaintiff – Respondent – Respondents on 25th April 2012 and 27th June 2025 Decided on: 31st March 2026 Obeyesekere, J (1) This is an appeal arising from the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal on 20th July 2010. By the said judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment delivered by the District Court of Colombo [the District Court] on 31st October 2002, granting the relief prayed for by the Plaintiff – Respondent – Respondent [the Plaintiff] in paragraphs (a), (b) and (e) of the prayer to the plaint dated 24th October, 1991. Aggrieved, the Defendant – Appellant – Appellant [the Defendant] sought and obtained special leave to appeal on 26th January 2012 on four questions of law which have been re-produced at paragraph 15 of this judgment. The relevant facts (2) It is admitted that the mother of the Plaintiff was the owner of a property in extent of approximately 78P situated in Gonawela within the district of Colombo, and that the said property was gifted to the Plaintiff by her mother by Deed of Gift No. 1898 dated 29th March 1984. The Plaintiff was a spinster and did not have any other land. 4 (3) The Plaintiff states that in 1989, she was in need of money and had borrowed a sum of Rs. 60,000 from a person she has referred to in the plaint as “Newton Perera”. It is admitted that as security for the said loan, the Plaintiff had transferred the said property to a person named Jamis by Deed of Transfer No. 1265 dated 1st December 1989 [V9], with the consideration being Rs. 110,000. It is admitted further that on the same date, the said Jamis had executed Lease Agreement No. 1266 [V8] in favour of the Plaintiff granting the Plaintiff for a period of one year – i.e. until 30th November 1990, a lease of the said property that the Plaintiff had transferred by V9. (4) The Plaintiff states further that in terms of the understanding that she had with Jamis, she was required to settle the money she had borrowed by 30th November 1990. She had therefore informed a friend of hers, Asilin Weerakkody that she needs to raise a sum of Rs. 132,000 to settle Jamis. This sum comprised the capital that she had borrowed and the interest due thereon. There is a discrepancy between the evidence of the Plaintiff and Asilin whether the Plaintiff was looking to find a buyer for the said property or whether she was only looking for someone to give her the money to settle the loan and enter into a transaction similar to the one the Plaintiff had already entered into with Jamis. (5) Be that as it may, it is admitted that the Defendant, who was known to Asilin, had been introduced to the Plaintiff by Asilin. The Plaintiff stated further that in addition to the Rs. 132,000 she required to settle Jamis, she required a further Rs. 50,000 and that the Defendant had agreed to give her a total sum of Rs. 182,000. Although the Plaintiff had been confused between the phrases ‘ɪýƟȼකරය’ and ‘‘උකස්කරය’’, when the evidence of the Plaintiff is taken as a whole, it is the unequivocal position of the Plaintiff that she never intended to execute a transfer deed to sell the property to the Defendant but only intended to mortgage the property to the Defendant. (6) Having made arrangements with the Defendant to obtain the money, Jamis had transferred the said property to the Plaintiff by Deed No. 243 dated 26th October 1990 [V7], with the consideration being Rs. 120,000. V7 has been attested by A Rodrigo, Attorney-at-Law. According to the attestation in V7, the said sum had been paid to Jamis on 19th September 1990 in the presence of the Attorney-at-Law, but 5 V7 had been executed only on 26th October 1990. Even though the Attorney-at-Law gave evidence, no explanation was offered for V7 not having been executed simultaneously with the payment of money. (7) The Plaintiff and Asilin stated that they met the Attorney-at-Law only once and that it was the Defendant who had attended to the above transaction with the Attorney- at-Law. The Plaintiff stated further that she signed a set of printed forms before the Attorney-at-Law but that the said forms were blank at the time she signed them and therefore the contents were not read out to her by the Attorney-at-Law. If I may summarise, the Plaintiff’s position is that (a) she wanted to raise the required funds to settle the loan in order to revoke the transfer that she had made in favour of Jamis, (b) she only wanted to mortgage the property, and (c) it was her belief at the time she signed the blank papers before the Attorney-at-Law that what she was signing was only a mortgage in favour of the Defendant. (8) Thus, it is not the position of the Plaintiff that even though she executed a transfer deed, she did not intend to transfer the beneficial interest in the land to the Defendant and that the Defendant held it in trust for the Plaintiff. (9) According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant had tried to forcibly enter her property in August 1991. The Plaintiff had also heard that the Defendant is seeking to claim ownership to the said property. The Plaintiff had therefore instructed her Attorney- at-Law to carry out a search at the Land Registry, and followed it up by making a complaint to the Police. At the inquiry before the Police, the Defendant had produced two deeds, namely (a) Deed No. 263 dated 31st January 1991 [P3/V2] by which the Plaintiff is said to have transferred 60 perches of the said property to the Defendant with the consideration being Rs. 200,000 and (b) a Deed of Mortgage bearing No. 264 [P4/V3] attested on the same day, by which the Defendant had in turn mortgaged the said property to the Plaintiff and obtained a sum of Rs. 125,000 from the Plaintiff. According to P4, the Defendant had time until 31st October 1993 to settle the said mortgage. Both deeds had been executed before the same Attorney-at-Law who had attested V7. 6 (10) It is only thereafter that the Plaintiff filed action in the District Court seeking inter alia a declaration that the Plaintiff is the owner of the property referred to in the Schedule to the plaint, and a declaration that Deed No. 263 is of no force in law. I must state that if the said relief is granted, Deed No. 264 too would become null and void. (11) The position taken up by the Defendant in her answer was as follows: (a) She agreed with the Plaintiff to purchase the said property for a sum of Rs. 400,000 and of that sum, she paid Rs. 54,000 to the Plaintiff; (b) Having executed P3, she had mortgaged the said property to the Plaintiff by P4 for a sum of “Rs. 150,000” and that she has paid the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 50,000 out of the said sum on 2nd July 1991; (c) Although she tried to settle the amounts due under and in terms of P4, the Plaintiff had refused to accept the said sum of money. The trial before the District Court and the judgment of the District Court (12) The trial commenced on 19th September 2000 before the Additional District Judge of Colombo with the marking of admissions and the raising of issues. The Plaintiff gave evidence on her behalf and led the evidence of Asilin. The Defendant did not give evidence although she was present throughout the trial but instead, led the evidence of her husband and of the Attorney-at-Law before whom P3, P4 and V7 had been signed. (13) The District Court has carefully considered the evidence of both parties and the documents prior to concluding as follows: “flfia fj;;a fuu kvqfjs bosrsm;a js we;s lreKq wkqj m%Yakhg ;=vq os we;s wxl 263 orK js2 jYfhka ,l=Kq lr we;s Tmamqj ,shd iy;sl lr we;af;a we;a;jYfhkau jsl+Kquslrhla jYfhka fkdj meusKs<sldrsh jsiska js;a;sldrshf.ka ,nd .kakd ,o Kh uqo,la ms<snoj njg wOslrKh ieysug m;a fjs\' meusKs<sldrsh fjkqfjka bosrsm;a lrk ,o idlaIs u.ska ta ms<sn|j ikd: js we;s kuq;a\" th tfia fkdjkafkah hkak ms<sn|j js;a;sh fjkqfjka wOslrkh ieysug m;a jk whqrska idlaIshla bosrsm;a lr fkdue;\'” (14) The District Court had accordingly entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff. 7 The judgment of the Court of Appeal and Questions of law (15) Aggrieved, the Defendant invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. Her appeal having been dismissed by the Court of Appeal, the Defendant sought and obtained from this Court, Special leave to appeal against the said judgment on the following questions of law: (a) The judgment of the Court of Appeal is contrary to law and against the weight of evidence. (b) The Court of Appeal erred in affirming the finding of the District Court that Deed No. 263 was executed through misrepresentation. (c) The Court of Appeal erred in delivering judgment in favour of the Plaintiff on the basis that the Defendant had perpetrated a fraud on the Plaintiff. (d) The Court of Appeal misdirected itself by failing to properly consider the evidence of the Notary that was led on behalf of the Defendant. (16) It was the submission of the learned President’s Counsel for the Defendant that the evidence that was led before the District Court does not support the conclusion reached by the District Court, and that the Court of Appeal erred in law when it failed to properly evaluate the judgment of the District Court. (17) The primary issue that arises in determining the above questions of law is whether the version of the Plaintiff that she did not intend to execute a transfer of the property in favour of the Defendant but only wanted to mortgage the property to the Defendant as part of a money lending transaction, is credible. The credibility of the Plaintiff’s version (18) The starting point in deciding the credibility of the Plaintiff’s version is the purpose for which the Plaintiff states she required the money. (19) The claim of the Plaintiff that she had “mortgaged” the said property to Jamis is borne out by the Deed of Transfer [V9] that she executed in favour of Jamis on 1st 8 December 1989. Jamis had thereafter executed a lease in favour of the said premises by V8 on the same date, in terms of which the said premises had been leased out to the Plaintiff until 30th November 1990. Such an arrangement is reflective of the claim of the Plaintiff that she needed to raise money in order to settle Jamis and is clearly borne out by V8 and V9, which documents were incidentally produced by the Defendant. (20) It is admitted that the money required to pay Jamis was given by the Defendant. The Attorney-at-Law who attested V7 in fact stated that the Defendant and her husband had met him in order to discuss the settlement of the moneys due and owing to Jamis and that they were present when the money was paid to Jamis. Having paid Rs. 120,000 to Jamis, V7 had been executed two months later transferring the property to the Plaintiff. (21) Although the Attorney-at-Law states that the said sum was paid in his presence on 19th September 1990, according to V7, it had been attested only on 26th October 1990. While it is difficult to believe that Rs. 120,000 was paid by the Defendant to Jamis, a stranger to her, without obtaining a deed of transfer on the same date, the Attorney-at-Law has not offered any explanation for this delay in attesting V7. It is however clear that the Plaintiff wanted the money in order to settle a money lending transaction with Jamis and that the money was paid by the Defendant. (22) This brings me to the core issue of whether the Plaintiff intended only to mortgage the land or to transfer it outright to the Defendant. In this regard, on the one hand is the evidence of the Plaintiff and Asilin, and on the other is the evidence of the Attorney-at-Law and the husband of the Defendant. It is significant that the Defendant did not give evidence, although the transaction that had given rise to this appeal had been discussed between the Plaintiff, Asilin and the Defendant. (23) Be that as it may, there is confusion with regard to the consideration that the Defendant claims she agreed to pay for the transfer of the land to her. According to the Defendant’s husband, the agreed purchase price was Rs. 400,000, whereas the consideration that is stated in P3 is Rs. 200,000. The Attorney-at-Law has confirmed in the attestation that the purchase price was Rs. 200,000 and nothing more and 9 even given the breakdown of the manner in which the said Rs. 200,000 was paid – i.e., a sum of Rs. 146,000 and a further sum of Rs. 54,000 having been paid in his presence on 19th September 1990 and 7th November 1990, respectively. The Defendant’s husband however claimed that a further sum of Rs. 50,000 was paid to the Plaintiff on 4th January 1991 [V5]. However, this payment is not reflected in the attestation of the Attorney-at-Law on P3, even though the deed was signed thereafter on 31st January 1991. (24) This confusion regarding the consideration is aggravated by two receipts prepared by the same Attorney-at-Law and said to have been signed by the Plaintiff. In terms of the receipt for the payment of Rs. 54,000 [V6] the Attorney-at-Law has stated thereon that the consideration is Rs. 400,000. However, on V5, the consideration has been given as Rs. 250,000. V5 and V6 have been prepared by the same Attorney- at-Law before whom P3, P4 and V7 had been executed and have been signed by the husband of the Defendant as a witness. When questioned on this contradiction, the Attorney-at-Law admitted that this was a lapse on his part. However, in my view, these contradictions cannot be brushed aside as being a mere lapse on the part of the Attorney-at-Law for the reason that when taken as a whole it gives credence to the version of the Plaintiff that she signed on blank printed papers. (25) There is one other matter that I wish to advert to with regard to the two receipts, V5 and V6. These are standard receipts prepared by the said Attorney-at-Law, with provision to fill the blank spaces and delete the words that not applicable, depending on the nature of the transaction. Thus, the words, “ʆǦනúකරෙɏ ɪûƞමට/ෙපාෙරාǦǐɫම/උකස්ûɝම/ බNJදට Ǐම” appear on V5 and V6 and it was the duty of the Attorney-at-Law to delete what was not relevant. However, unlike in the receipt prepared by him for V7, the Attorney-at-Law had not deleted any of the words, “ʆǦනúකරෙɏ ɪûƞමට/ෙපාෙරාǦǐɫම/උකස්ûɝම/ බNJදට Ǐම”. The explanation offered by the Attorney-at-Law was that this was a lapse on his part. However, this too cannot be brushed aside as being a mere lapse. Instead, it shows not only that even the Attorney-at-Law who prepared P3, P4 and V7 was “confused” with regard to the nature of the transaction but also supports the version of the Plaintiff that she signed printed forms which were blank at the time she signed them. 10 (26) Owing to the many lapses admitted by the Attorney-at-Law, it was suggested to him that he had acted in collusion with the Defendant in the execution of this entire transaction. The learned District Judge who had the benefit of listening to the evidence of the Attorney-at-Law had this to say of the Attorney-at-Law: “fus wkqj m%Yakhg ;=vq oS we;s wxl 263 orK Tmamqj ,shd iy;sl lr we;s fkd;drsiajrhdf.a idlaIsfha jsiajdiksh;ajh wju ugsgul mj;sk nj wOslrKfha ks.ukhhs\' Tyq i;H idlaIshla os we;s mqoa.,fhl= f,i ie<lsh fkdyelsh\' ;u rdPldrsh ksis f,i bgq lr fkdue;s fkd;drsiajrfhl= f,io ie,lsh yelsh\' meusKs,a, fjkqfjka fhdaPkd lr we;s mrsos js;a;sldrsh iu. fuu fkd;drsiajrhd tl;= js kvqjg wod, foam, wemhla jYfhka js;a;sldrshg ,shd meusKs<sldrsh jsiska uqo,a ,nd f.k we;s njo\" js\'2 jYfhka ,l=Kq lrk ,o wxl 263 orK Tmamqj jslsKsula f,i ilia lr thg meusKs,sldrshf.a w;aik ,nd f.k we;s njo wOslrKfha ks.ukhhs\' tfiau meusKs<sldrsh jsiska uqo,a ,nd .;af;a hhs lshuska bosrsm;a lr we;s js4\" js5\" js6\" js11\" jS12 orK f,aLK o fuu fkd;drsiajrhd jsiska ilia lr we;s f,aLK nejska tajdfha ksrjoH;djh ms<sn|j iy i;H;djh ms<snoj wOslrKhg ieysug m;ajsh fkdyelsh\'” (27) The above conclusion of the District Court has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal. I must state that I see no basis to disagree with the above finding (28) The next item of evidence is critical to the success of the case of the Plaintiff. Here was a Plaintiff who was in urgent need of Rs. 132,000 to settle a loan and secure the release of her property which she had transferred to Jamis. She stated that she needed a further sum of Rs. 50,000 and that the Defendant had agreed to give her that sum, as well. Thus, it is clear that the Plaintiff was in need of money. (29) It is in this light that one must now consider P4, said to have been attested at the same time as P3, by which the Defendant claims she mortgaged the said property to the Plaintiff to secure a loan of Rs. 150,000 that the Plaintiff was giving the Defendant. The Attorney-at-Law had however stated that the consideration, which he has stated on P4 was Rs. 125,000 and not Rs. 150,000 as claimed by the Defendant, was not exchanged in his presence, thus giving rise to a doubt with regard to the genuineness of the entire transaction. The evidence was to the contrary, in that it was the Plaintiff who required the money and hence, while it is almost impossible to believe that the Plaintiff had a sum of Rs. 150,000 [or Rs. 125,000 as it appears on P4] to lend to the Defendant, P4 makes it abundantly clear that the Defendant had concocted a master plan to defraud the Plaintiff, who it is said had a mental infirmity and could not comprehend easily. 11 Discrepancies in the version of the Plaintiff (30) The learned President’s Counsel for the Defendant pointed out several discrepancies in the case of the Plaintiff. However, I am in agreement with the view expressed by the Court of Appeal that the entire transaction must be looked at holistically. Viewed from that context, I am satisfied that such discrepancies are not sufficiently significant to vary the findings of fact arrived at by the District Court. (31) I am fortified in arriving at such a conclusion by the fact that the issues were raised and the recording of evidence, which commenced on 8th February 2001 and was concluded in less than one year on 1st February 2002, took place before the same learned District Judge who delivered the judgment. Thus, the learned District Judge not only had the benefit of hearing the entirety of the evidence of all witnesses but of seeing for herself the demeanour of the witnesses including that of the Plaintiff. (32) Our Courts have held over a long period of time that due regard must be had of such circumstances when considering a judgment of a trial court. In M.P. Munasinghe v C.P. Vidanage and another [69 NLR 97], Lord Pearson cited with approval the following statement by Viscount Simon in Watt or Thomas v Thomas [(1947) A. C. 484; at page 485-6 (H. L.)]: “Apart from the class of case in which the powers of the Court of Appeal are limited to deciding a question of law (for example, on a case stated or on an appeal under the County Courts Acts) an appellate court has, of course, jurisdiction to review the record of the evidence in order to determine whether the conclusion originally reached upon that evidence should stand; but this jurisdiction has to be exercised with caution. If there is no evidence to support a particular conclusion (and this is really a question of law) the appellate court will not hesitate so to decide. But if the evidence as a whole can reasonably be regarded as justifying the conclusion arrived at at the trial, and especially if that conclusion has been arrived at on conflicting testimony by a tribunal which saw and heard the witnesses, the appellate court will bear in mind that it has not enjoyed this opportunity and that the view of the trial judge as to where credibility lies is entitled to great weight. This is not to say that the judge of first instance 12 can be treated as infallible in determining which side is telling the truth or is refraining from exaggeration. Like other tribunals, he may go wrong on a question of fact, but it is a cogent circumstance that a judge of first instance, when estimating the value of verbal testimony, has the advantage (which is denied to courts of appeal) of having the witnesses before him and observing the manner in which their evidence is given.” (33) Ranasinghe, J [as he then was] held in De Silva and others v Seneviratne and another [(1981) 2 Sri LR 7; at page 17] that: “..it seems to me: that, where the trial judge\'s findings on questions of fact are based upon the credibility of witnesses, on the footing of the trial judge\'s perception of such evidence, then such findings are entitled to great weight and the utmost consideration, and will be reversed only if it appears to the appellate Court that the trial judge has failed to make full use of the \"priceless advantage\" given to him of seeing and listening to the witnesses giving viva voce evidence, and the appellate Court is convinced by the plainest consideration that it would be justified in doing so.” [emphasis added] (34) This position was reiterated in Alwis v Piyasena Fernando [(1993) 1 Sri LR 119; at page 122] by Chief Justice G.P.S De Silva when he stated as follows: “It is well established that findings of primary facts by a trial Judge who hears and sees witnesses are not to be lightly disturbed on appeal. The findings in this case are based largely on credibility of witnesses. I am therefore of the view that there was no reasonable basis upon which the Court of Appeal could have reversed the findings of the trial Judge.” (35) A similar view was taken recently by Anil Gooneratne, J in Gamini Perera v Don Joseph [S.C. Appeal No. 04/2012; SC Minutes of 30th May 2016) when he held that, “All primary facts and truth of the matters in dispute are best to be left in the hands of the Trial Judge…………. It is the Trial Judge who hears evidence, sees the witness in the witness box and observes the witness’s demeanour at all times in Court. As such the learned District Judge’s views on disbelieving the Plaintiff on items of evidence as above need not be interfered by this Court.” 13 Conclusion (36) In the above circumstances, I see no basis to interfere with the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the questions of law are answered in the negative, the judgments of the District Court and the Court of Appeal are affirmed and this appeal is dismissed without costs. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT Kumudini Wickremasinghe, J I agree JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT M. Sampath K. B Wijeratne, J I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT 📄 Download
31 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/26/2011
2 Vs. T.M.K. Somawathie, Karambewa, Kalakaramba Wewa. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT H.M. Sediris Appuhamy, Karambewa, Kalakaramba Wewa. 1ST DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT And Now between T.M.K. Somawathie, Karambewa, Kalakaramba Wewa. Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Susila Kumarihami Dissanayake, Karambewa, Kalakaramba Wewa. SUBSTITUTED – PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Vs (1) H.M. Wimalawathie (2) H.M. Premarathne Both at Palugaswewa No.1, Kalakaramba Wewa. 2ND & 3RD DEFENDANTS – APPELLANTS – RESPONDENTS H.M. Sediris Appuhamy, Karambewa, Kalakaramba Wewa. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT 2 Vs. T.M.K. Somawathie, Karambewa, Kalakaramba Wewa. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT H.M. Sediris Appuhamy, Karambewa, Kalakaramba Wewa. 1ST DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT And Now between T.M.K. Somawathie, Karambewa, Kalakaramba Wewa. Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Susila Kumarihami Dissanayake, Karambewa, Kalakaramba Wewa. SUBSTITUTED – PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Vs (1) H.M. Wimalawathie (2) H.M. Premarathne Both at Palugaswewa No.1, Kalakaramba Wewa. 2ND & 3RD DEFENDANTS – APPELLANTS – RESPONDENTS H.M. Sediris Appuhamy, Karambewa, Kalakaramba Wewa. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an appeal under and in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read with Section 5C(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 19 of 1990, as amended SC Appeal No: 26/2011 SC/HC/CALA No: 308/2009 NCP/HCCA/ARP/00234/2002 (F) DC Anuradhapura Case No: 17585/Land T.M.K. Somawathie, Karambewa, Kalakaramba Wewa. PLAINTIFF Vs. (1) H.M. Sediris Appuhamy (2) H.M. Wimalawathie (3) H.M. Premarathne All at, Palugaswewa No.1, Kalakaramba Wewa. DEFENDANTS (1) H.M. Wimalawathie (2) H.M. Premarathne Both at Palugaswewa No.1, Kalakaramba Wewa. 2ND & 3RD DEFENDANTS – APPELLANTS 2 Vs. T.M.K. Somawathie, Karambewa, Kalakaramba Wewa. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT H.M. Sediris Appuhamy, Karambewa, Kalakaramba Wewa. 1ST DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT And Now between T.M.K. Somawathie, Karambewa, Kalakaramba Wewa. Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Susila Kumarihami Dissanayake, Karambewa, Kalakaramba Wewa. SUBSTITUTED – PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Vs (1) H.M. Wimalawathie (2) H.M. Premarathne Both at Palugaswewa No.1, Kalakaramba Wewa. 2ND & 3RD DEFENDANTS – APPELLANTS – RESPONDENTS H.M. Sediris Appuhamy, Karambewa, Kalakaramba Wewa. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT 3 Before: Kumudini Wickremasinghe, J Arjuna Obeyesekere, J M. Sampath K.B. Wijeratne, J Counsel: Razik Zarook, PC with Rohana Deshapriya and Chanakya Liyanage for the Substituted Plaintiff – Respondent – Appellant Rohan Sahabandu, PC with Chathurika Elvitigala for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants – Appellants – Respondents Argued on: 27th March 2025 Written Tendered on behalf of the Substituted Plaintiff – Respondent – Submissions: Appellant on 8th October 2015 Tendered on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants – Appellants – Respondents on 2nd October 2015 Decided on: 31st March 2026 Obeyesekere, J (1) This is an appeal arising from the judgment delivered by the Provincial High Court of the North Central Province holden at Anuradhapura exercising civil appellate jurisdicƟon [the High Court] by which the High Court set aside the judgment of the District Court, Anuradhapura [the District Court] and dismissed the plaint. Facts in brief (2) In her plaint filed on 23rd February 2000, the PlainƟff – Respondent – Appellant [the PlainƟff] stated as follows: (a) She became the owner of the land referred to in the First Schedule, in extent of 1 acre, by maternal inheritance; (b) She has been in possession of the said land for over 45 years; (c) About 15 years prior to the filing of acƟon, she had handed over to the 1st Defendant – Respondent – Respondent [the 1st Defendant] who was occupying the land adjacent to the land possessed by the PlainƟff, 1 rood out of the said land [i.e. the land referred to in the Second Schedule] to enable the 1st Defendant to culƟvate the said land; 4 (d) The 1st Defendant had thereaŌer planted coconut trees and other crops on the said land; (e) While the PlainƟff took the income from the coconut trees, the 1st Defendant took the income from the other crops; (f) In 1991, she had informed the 1st Defendant that she requires the said land to be given to her daughter; (g) Since the 1st Defendant was not willing to hand over the property, she had lodged a complaint with the MediaƟon Board. At the inquiry held at the MediaƟon Board, the 1st Defendant had agreed in wriƟng [P1] to hand over the premises to the PlainƟff by 5th September 1992 subject to the PlainƟff paying the Defendant a sum of Rs. 1500 for expenses incurred in developing the land and the 1st Defendant being permiƩed to remove the temporary hut erected by the 1st Defendant; (h) Even though she tried to pay to the 1st Defendant the payment that was agreed before the MediaƟon Board, he had refused to accept the money and leave the premises, resulƟng in the PlainƟff making a complaint to the MediaƟon Board and the MediaƟon Board issuing a CerƟficate of Non-seƩlement [P2] on 4th October 1992; (i) While conƟnuing to occupy the said land, the 1st Defendant had obstructed the pathway that was used by the PlainƟff to access her paddy field situated on the western boundary of the land referred to in the First Schedule, which resulted in the PlainƟff making a complaint at the Kekirawa Police StaƟon; (j) The 2nd Defendant – Appellant – Respondent, who is the daughter of the 1st Defendant, and her husband, the 3rd Defendant – Appellant – Respondent [the 2nd Defendant / 3rd Defendant] had thereaŌer entered the land and together with the 1st Defendant, commenced the construcƟon of a house with bricks and cement; (k) The PlainƟff had lodged a complaint with the Kekirawa Police on 30th January 2000 about the obstrucƟon caused to the pathway and the construcƟon. 5 (3) It is only thereaŌer that the PlainƟff filed acƟon in the District Court, seeking inter alia a declaraƟon of Ɵtle to the land in the First Schedule and an order for the ejectment of all three Defendants from the land referred to in the Second Schedule. (4) The PlainƟff had also sought an enjoining order prevenƟng the Defendants from proceeding with the construcƟon of the house. The District Court had iniƟally issued an enjoining order and aŌer inquiry, issued an interim injuncƟon. (5) In their answer, the Defendants admiƩed the situaƟon of the land in dispute. While denying the claim of the PlainƟff that she is the owner of the land and that she was in possession of the said land as well as the fact that the 1st Defendant entered the land as a licensee of the PlainƟff, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants claimed that they had been in possession of the said land since 1968 and that they have prescribed to the said land. With regard to the seƩlement before the MediaƟon Board, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants pleaded that the 1st Defendant had no interest or connecƟon with the said land nor was he in possession of the said land and therefore the 1st Defendant had no authority to enter into any seƩlement with the PlainƟff relaƟng to the said land. (6) It is clear from the answer that the Defendants were not relying on paper Ɵtle but were claiming prescripƟve Ɵtle to the land in the Second Schedule. It is also clear that the posiƟon of the PlainƟff was that the 1st Defendant was in occupaƟon of the land with the leave and license of the PlainƟff. The relief prayed for by the PlainƟff must be understood in accordance with what the PlainƟff has set out in the body of the plaint, which is to have her enƟtlement to the land in the Second schedule asserted and enforced. Trial before the District Court (7) The trial commenced on 28th November 2000 with the parƟes admiƫng the situaƟon of the corpus followed by the raising of issues. The PlainƟff commenced her evidence on 25th July 2001 with her evidence-in-chief being led before the then District Judge. Her evidence was on the same lines as pleaded in her plaint, and was corroborated by Illangasinghe, who was a neighbour of both the PlainƟff and the Defendants. The cross examinaƟon of the PlainƟff commenced on 17th January 2002 6 and the rest of the evidence of the PlainƟff, the witnesses called on her behalf, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and the witnesses called on their behalf were all led before the learned District Judge who delivered the judgment. (8) The 1st Defendant did not give evidence. While both the 2nd and 3rd Defendants gave evidence, they sought to distance themselves from the 1st Defendant and stated that the 1st Defendant was not in occupaƟon of the said land at any Ɵme but that it has been the 2nd and 3rd Defendants who have been in occupaƟon of such land since 1968. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants had to take up such a posiƟon in view of the seƩlement arrived at by the 1st Defendant before the MediaƟon Board to vacate the land and hand over possession to the PlainƟff within an year, and to prevent being estopped from denying the Ɵtle of the PlainƟff to the said land. The 2nd Defendant went a step further and feigned ignorance of the seƩlement reached before the MediaƟon Board, although her husband admiƩed that he was aware of such seƩlement. The seƩlement would however be binding on all Defendants since the evidence was that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants entered the land and commenced construcƟon only aŌer the 1st Defendant declined to honour the seƩlement. (9) The 2nd Defendant also stated that her mother had purchased the disputed land for a sum of Rs. 500 from Heen Banda Welvidana. Further details relaƟng to such purchase was not provided. While this posiƟon was not suggested to the PlainƟff during her cross examinaƟon, the 2nd Defendant admiƩed that no deed was executed with regard to such purchase. (10) The 2nd Defendant also admiƩed during the evidence-in-chief that she entered in to the land on the assumpƟon that the said land belonged to her [ෙමම ඉඩමට ඇƱɢ ɬෙƜ ෙȼ ඉඩම පැȽƝɣකාɜයෙĘ බව ʏතාෙගන ෙනාෙɩ. අෙȗ ඉඩම බව ʏතාෙගන] (11) The following quesƟons and answers during cross examinaƟon of the 2nd Defendant demonstrate that the Defendants had no claim to the land: “ȝ : පැȽƝɣකාɜයට ෙȼ ඉඩම මɩ උɞමෙයǦ ලැȬණ බව üවා? උ : ඔɩ ȝ : දැǦ ȘʘගǦනවාද ෙȼ ýɉර පැȽƝɣකාɜයෙĘ බව? උ : ඇෙĘ ෙවǦන ඇƯ. මම දǦෙǦ නැහැ.” 7 (12) By its judgment delivered on 25th October 2004, the District Court held that, (a) the 1st Defendant was in occupaƟon of the said land with the leave and license of the PlainƟff, (b) the PlainƟff had thereby established her Ɵtle to the land, and (c) the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have not established that they have been in occupaƟon of the said land since 1968 and that they have acquired prescripƟve Ɵtle to the said land. The judgment of the High Court (13) Aggrieved, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants filed an appeal which was heard by the High Court. The High Court took the view that: “ෙමම නƍෙɩ පාəශවයǦ ȿɢ අවස්ථාෙɩǏ ɪෂය වස්Ʊෙɩ අනනɕතාවය Șʘෙගන ඇත ද ɪƮƯෙɏ උƮතරෙɏ උප ෙɢඛනෙɏ සදහǦව ෙනාමැƯ ɬව ද ආරɬලට අදාළ ඉඩම හǐනා ෙගන ඔȗȚ ûɝම පැȽƝɢෙɢ වගüම ෙɩ. පැȽƝɢල ɪʆǦ ඉǎɜපƮ කර ඇƯ පැȽƝɢෙɢ උපෙɢඛනෙɏ සදහǦ ඉඩම ආරɬලට ɪෂය ɫ ඇƯ ඉඩම බවට ඉǎɜපƮ කර ඇƯ ෙɢඛන මęǦ සනාථ ûɝමú ʆǐ ɫ ෙනාමැත. එබැɪǦ පාəශවකɞවǦ ඉඩෙȼ අනනɕතාවය ȘʘගැǨමú වශෙයǦ සදහǦ කළ ද ෙə ɪǦƋකාŹෙයʤ නƍකරයකǏ එය ȝමාණවƮ ෙනාෙɩ. එෙස් ඉඩෙȼ Șʏźම ඔȗȚ කළ ෙනාහැû අවස්ථාවක Ǐ පැȽƝɣකɞට තම නƍව පවƮවා ෙගන යාමට හැûයාවú ෙනාමැත.” (14) This confusion on the part of the High Court with regard to the idenƟty of the land appears to have arisen from the fact that (a) the area in which the land was situated was known as Palugaswewa, (b) with the introducƟon of a new post office for the area, Palugaswewa was split in to two, namely Palugaswewa One and Palugaswewa Two, (c) the land in dispute was situated right in the middle of Palugaswewa One and Palugaswewa Two, and (d) almost adjacent to Palugaswewa Two was a village known as Karabewa where the PlainƟff had her house. The evidence however revealed that these lands were all situated adjacent to one another and that the situaƟon of the land or its idenƟty was not in issue between the parƟes. (15) Thus, the High Court took the view that even though (a) the parƟes had admiƩed the situaƟon of the land in dispute and its idenƟty, and (b) the documents tendered by the PlainƟff had been marked without any objecƟon being raised by the Defendants, the PlainƟff has not established that the documents produced by the PlainƟff relate to the land which is the subject maƩer of the dispute and that in a rei 8 vindicaƟo acƟon, failure to establish the idenƟty of the land is fatal to the maintainability of an acƟon. (16) This was the basis on which the High Court proceeded to set aside the judgment of the District Court. Given the evidence that was led by both parƟes and the posiƟon taken up by the 2nd Defendant that her mother had purchased the said land from Heen Banda Welvidana, I am of the view that such a conclusion was not only irrelevant but was erroneous. Thus, on that basis alone, the judgment of the High Court is liable to be set aside. (17) With regard to the prescripƟve claim of the Defendants, the High Court took the view that the Defendants had not established that it has acquired prescripƟve rights. This is borne out by the following passage: “ɪƮƯෙɏ කාලාවෙරʤǝ අɐƯවාʆකම ඔȗȚ ɫ ෙනාƯȬණ ද පැȽƝɣකාර පාəශවය ස්වüය අɐƯවාʆකȼ ǎසා අǝකරණය ඉǎɜෙɏ ෙɢඛන සහ සාúɿ මęǦ ǧʆ ෙලස තහɬɞ කර ෙනාමැƯ බව ෙපǨ යන ෙහɐǦ පැȽƝɢෙɢ ඉɢලා ඇƯ ûʆǐ සහනයú ලබා Ǐම ǩʈǐʈ බවට ưරණය කරȿ. ɪƮƯකාර පාəශවෙɏ ස්වüය කාලාවෙරʤǞ අɐƯවාʆකම සȼබǦධෙයǦ කරන ලද ඉɢɤȼ තහɬɞ කර ෙනාමැƯ ǧසා එü ඉɢɤම සȼබǦධෙයǦ ද සළකා බැɤමට Ǩතɕාǩþල හැûයාවú ෙනාමැƯ බව ưරණය කරȿ.” Questions of Law (18) This appeal arises from the said judgment of the High Court. While the PlainƟff sought and obtained leave to appeal on the quesƟons of law set out in paragraph 14 of its peƟƟon, the learned President’s Counsel for the Defendants had raised one quesƟon of law. However, when this maƩer was taken up for hearing, the learned President’s Counsel for the PlainƟff and the 2nd and 3rd Defendants moved that the quesƟon of law to be decided by this Court shall be as follows: “Whether the learned District Judge has analysed the evidence with regard to the Ɵtle of the PlainƟff to the land in quesƟon.” (19) Thus, whether the 1st Defendant and/or the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have prescribed to the said land is not a maƩer that I am required to consider in this judgment. 9 Nature of the action (20) The starƟng point in deciding this appeal is to idenƟfy the nature of the acƟon filed by the PlainƟff. True enough, the PlainƟff is seeking a declaraƟon of Ɵtle but what is criƟcal is the claim of the PlainƟff that the 1st Defendant came into occupaƟon of the land at her request and with her permission but did not leave aŌer being requested to leave. Thus, even though the PlainƟff was seeking a declaraƟon of Ɵtle, that was on the basis that the 1st Defendant had iniƟally possessed the land with the leave and license of the PlainƟff. The District Court has accepted this posiƟon in its judgment and this conclusion has not been challenged by the Defendants. The mere fact that the PlainƟff was seeking a declaraƟon of Ɵtle did not make her acƟon a rei vindicaƟo acƟon where a plainƟff must establish on a balance of probability that he/she has Ɵtle to the land. Furthermore, if the acƟon was purely a rei vindicaƟo, the necessity to aver such relaƟonship and to raise issues on that basis does not arise since the rei vindicaƟo acƟon is based on Ɵtle of the PlainƟff and the possession of the Defendant against such Ɵtle. (21) That being so, the claim of the PlainƟff that the 1st Defendant came into occupaƟon of the land at her request and with her permission, if successfully established, brings into play SecƟon 116 of the Evidence Ordinance, in terms of which, \"No person who came upon any immovable property by the license of the person in possession thereof shall be permiƩed to deny that such person had a Ɵtle to such possession at the Ɵme when such license was given.” (22) A clear explanaƟon of the difference between a rei vindicaƟo acƟon based on ownership and an acƟon for ejectment based on the breach of contract is found in Pathirana v Jayasundara [(1955) 58 NLR 169; at 172 and 173] where GraƟaen, J stated as follows: “In a rei vindicaƟo acƟon proper the owner of immovable property is enƟtled, on proof of his Ɵtle, to a decree in his favour for the recovery of the property and for the ejectment of the person in wrongful occupaƟon. “The plainƟff’s ownership of the thing is of the very essence of the acƟon”. Maasdorp’s InsƟtutes (7th Ed.) Vol. 2, 96.” 10 “The scope of an acƟon by a lessor against an overholding lessee for restoraƟon and ejectment, however, is different. Privity of contract (whether it be by original agreement or by aƩornment) is the foundaƟon of the right to relief and issues as to Ɵtle are irrelevant to the proceedings. Indeed, a lessee who has entered into occupaƟon is precluded from dispuƟng his lessor’s Ɵtle unƟl he has first restored the property in fulfilment of his contractual obligaƟon. “The lessee (conductor) cannot plead the excepƟo dominii, although he may be able easily to prove his own ownership, but he must by all means first surrender his possession and then liƟgate as to proprietorship . . . . ” Voet 19.2.32. Both these forms of acƟon referred to are no doubt designed to secure the same primary relief, namely, the recovery of property. But the cause of acƟon in one case is the violaƟon of the plainƟff’s rights of ownership, in the other it is the breach of the lessee’s contractual obligaƟon. A decree for a declaraƟon of Ɵtle may, of course, be obtained by way of addiƟonal relief either in a rei vindicaƟo acƟon proper (which is in truth an acƟon in rem) or in a lessor’s acƟon against his overholding tenant (which is an acƟon in personam). But in the former case, the declaraƟon is based on proof of ownership; in the laƩer, on proof of the contractual relaƟonship which forbids a denial that the lessor is the true owner.” (23) Having considered whether a prayer for a declaraƟon of Ɵtle would make such acƟon a rei vindicaƟo acƟon, H.N.G. Fernando, J (as he was then) stated as follows: “There is however the further point that the plainƟff in his prayer sought not only ejectment but also a declaraƟon of Ɵtle, a prayer for which laƩer relief is probably unusual in an acƟon against an overholding tenant. I have no doubt that it is open to a lessor in an acƟon for ejectment to ask for a declaraƟon of Ɵtle, but the quesƟon of difficulty which arises is whether the acƟon thereby becomes a rei vindicaƟo for which strict proof of the plainƟff\'s Ɵtle would be required, or else is merely one for a declaraƟon (without strict proof) of a Ɵtle which the tenant is by law precluded from denying. If the essenƟal element of a rei vindicaƟo is that the right of ownership must be strictly proved, it is difficult to accept the proposiƟon that an acƟon in which the plainƟff can automaƟcally obtain a declaraƟon of Ɵtle through the operaƟon of a rule of estoppel should be regarded as a vindicatory 11 acƟon. The fact that the person in possession of property originally held as lessee would not preclude the lessor owner from choosing to proceed against him by a rei vindicaƟo. But this choice can I think be properly exercised only by pleadings clearly seƫng out the claim of Ɵtle and sounding in delict.” [page 171] (24) In Chandrasena v Lokubanda [SC Appeal No. 20/2010; SC minutes of 18th December 2020], Amarasekara, J opined that: “Since rei vindicaƟo is based on ownership and violaƟon of rights of ownership, strict proof of Ɵtle is needed in a proper rei vindicaƟo acƟon. Even though, AƩanayake v. Aladin [(1997) 3 Sri LR 386] held that our common Law recognizes two acƟons, namely rei vindicaƟo and possessory acƟon as remedies that can be sought by an individual who is dispossessed, our law has developed and recognized a valid cause of acƟon on certain occasions to a dispossessed individual when strict proof of Ɵtle or ownership is not necessary to evict a person who is in unlawful possession; for example in an acƟon for declaraƟon of Ɵtle to evict an overholding lessee by a lessor, strict proof of Ɵtle like in a rei vindicaƟo proper is not necessary due to the estoppel taking place owing to secƟon 116 of the Evidence Ordinance. Thus, if one comes to the property accepƟng the PlainƟff as landlord on a contractual relaƟonship, he cannot put the plainƟff to strict proof of Ɵtle.” (25) As held in Ruberu and another v Wijesooriya [(1998) 1 Sri L R 58; at page 60]: “The fact that the licensee or the lessee obtained possession from the plainƟff appellant is perforce an admission of the fact that the Ɵtle resides in the plainƟff.” “ …It is an inflexible rule of law that no lessee or licensee will ever be permiƩed either to quesƟon the Ɵtle of the person who gave him the lease or the license or the permission to occupy or possess the land or to setup want of Ɵtle in that person. …” (26) A similar view was taken by Samayawardhena, J in Nawaz and others v Bopage [SC Appeal No. 92/2014; SC minutes of 12th February 2024] where he held as follows: “The second quesƟon of law is on the burden of proof. The plainƟff did not file a rei vindicaƟo acƟon. The plainƟff filed the acƟon as the landlord against the defendant as the overholding monthly tenant. As I explained earlier, the monthly 12 tenancy has unequivocally been admiƩed by the defendant. The terminaƟon of monthly tenancy was proved by P3 and P3(a). The plainƟff’s acƟon is based not on ownership but on the violaƟon of the privity of contract. The plainƟff’s main relief is the ejectment of the defendant, not the declaraƟon of Ɵtle to the premises. In cases of this nature, seeking a declaraƟon of Ɵtle is customary, yet it is superfluous. Although the plainƟff produced the Ɵtle deed, it was not necessary as the defendant tenant cannot quesƟon the plainƟff’s ownership to the property by operaƟon of the principle of estoppel embodied in secƟon 116 of the Evidence Ordinance.” [emphasis added] (27) Thus, the answer to the quesƟon of law is dependent on whether the PlainƟff has established that the Defendants were in possession of the land on the leave and license of the PlainƟff. Reasoning of the District Court (28) The District Court has relied on two documents in support of its posiƟon that the 1st Defendant came into possession of the disputed land with the leave and license of the PlainƟff and that all three Defendants are thus estopped from denying this fact and that the Ɵtle to the land was with the PlainƟff. The first document is P1, that being the terms of seƩlement entered into before the MediaƟon Board. In terms of P1, the 1st Defendant had agreed to hand over the land within one year of P1, and for the PlainƟff to pay the 1st Defendant a sum of Rs. 1500 as a culƟvaƟon gratuity. While P1 was marked without any objecƟon, it was not suggested to the PlainƟff during cross examinaƟon that P1 does not relate to the land in the Second Schedule to the plaint. P1 serves as an acknowledgement on the part of the Defendants that the 1st Defendant was a licensee of the PlainƟff. (29) The second document relied upon by the District Court, which necessarily does not show leave and license, was the acreage tax receipts produced by the PlainƟff for the disputed land for the years 1980-1981 [P6], 1982-1985 [P7], 1986 [P8] and 1987- 1988 [P9] which showed that the PlainƟff had paid acreage tax for the disputed land. These receipts were marked without any objecƟon from the Defendants and the PlainƟff was not quesƟoned on the non-applicability of these documents to the disputed land. 13 (30) With the finding of the District Court that the Defendants were occupying the land with the leave and license of the PlainƟff, and in view of the provisions of SecƟon 116, I am of the view that it was not necessary for the District Court to have examined the Ɵtle of the PlainƟff as in a rei vindicaƟo acƟon. The District Court was therefore right when it granted the PlainƟff the relief prayed for. (31) I must also state that the learned District Judge who delivered the judgment had the benefit of hearing the enƟrety of the evidence of all witnesses except the evidence- in-chief of the PlainƟff and thereby had the opportunity of seeing for himself the demeanour of the witnesses including the PlainƟff and the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. It has been held in a long series of cases that due regard must be had of such circumstances when considering a judgment of a trial court, and that an appellate Court must especially be slow to interfere with the findings of the trial court in such a situaƟon. [M.P. Munasinghe v C.P. Vidanage and another [69 NLR 97] and De Silva and others v Senevirathne and another [(1981) 2 Sri LR 7]]. Conclusion (32) In the above circumstances, I am of the view that the High Court erred when it considered a maƩer which was not in dispute between the parƟes. I have considered carefully the judgment of the District Court and I am saƟsfied that the findings of the District Court are supported by the evidence. Accordingly, the quesƟon of law is answered in the affirmaƟve. The judgment of the High Court is set aside, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed and this appeal is allowed, without costs. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT Kumudini Wickremasinghe, J I agree JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT M. Sampath K. B Wijeratne, J I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT 📄 Download
31 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/200/2012
Page 3 of 16 Both carrying on business under the name, style and firm of Jafferjee Brothers of No.150, St. Joseph Street, Colombo 14. AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Markandu Linganathan, No.9/4, Station Road, Colombo 4. 2. Abdul Cader Mahmud, Council Lane, Dehiwala. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER- APPELLANTS Vs. Gulzar Hussein Ibrahim Jafferjee, No.6A, Adams Avenue, Colombo 4. 4TH DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT Mrs. Zahra Thair Ibrahim Jafferjee, No.10, Adams Avenue, Colombo 4. 6TH DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT Both carrying on business under the name, style and firm of Jafferjee Brothers of No.150, St. Joseph Street, Colombo 14. Page 3 of 16 Both carrying on business under the name, style and firm of Jafferjee Brothers of No.150, St. Joseph Street, Colombo 14. AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Markandu Linganathan, No.9/4, Station Road, Colombo 4. 2. Abdul Cader Mahmud, Council Lane, Dehiwala. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER- APPELLANTS Vs. Gulzar Hussein Ibrahim Jafferjee, No.6A, Adams Avenue, Colombo 4. 4TH DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT Mrs. Zahra Thair Ibrahim Jafferjee, No.10, Adams Avenue, Colombo 4. 6TH DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT Both carrying on business under the name, style and firm of Jafferjee Brothers of No.150, St. Joseph Street, Colombo 14.
⚖ Hon. Justice Janak De Silva Page 1 of 16 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal in terms of Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No.54 of 2006. S.C. Appeal No: 200/2012 SC HCCA LA No: 90/2012 HCCA Colombo Case No: 66/2011/LA DC Colombo Case No: DLM 00198/2010 1. Markandu Linganathan, No.9/4, Station Road, Colombo 4. 2. Abdul Cader Mahmud, Council Lane, Dehiwala. PLAINTIFFS Vs. 1. Yousoof Ibrahim Jafferjee, No.3, Conston Place, Colombo 7. 2. Mansoor Ibrahim Jafferjee, No.6B, Adams Avenue, Colombo 4. 3. Mohomadally Ibrahim Jafferjee, No.25, Alfred Place, Colombo 3. 4. Gulzar Hussein Ibrahim Jafferjee, No.6A, Adams Avenue, Colombo 4. Page 2 of 16 5. Mrs. Rehana Abbas Ibrahim Jafferjee, No.36, Horton Place, Colombo 7. 6. Mrs. Zahra Thair Ibrahim Jafferjee, No.10, Adams Avenue, Colombo 4. Carrying Partnership in Business under the name, style and firm of Jafferjee Brothers of No.150, St. Joseph Street, Colombo 14. DEFENDANTS AND 1. Markandu Linganathan, No.9/4, Station Road, Colombo 4. 2. Abdul Cader Mahmud, Council Lane, Dehiwala. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONERS Vs. Gulzar Hussein Ibrahim Jafferjee, No.6A, Adams Avenue, Colombo 4. 4TH DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT Mrs. Zahra Thair Ibrahim Jafferjee, No.10, Adams Avenue, Colombo 4. 6TH DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT Page 3 of 16 Both carrying on business under the name, style and firm of Jafferjee Brothers of No.150, St. Joseph Street, Colombo 14. AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Markandu Linganathan, No.9/4, Station Road, Colombo 4. 2. Abdul Cader Mahmud, Council Lane, Dehiwala. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER- APPELLANTS Vs. Gulzar Hussein Ibrahim Jafferjee, No.6A, Adams Avenue, Colombo 4. 4TH DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT Mrs. Zahra Thair Ibrahim Jafferjee, No.10, Adams Avenue, Colombo 4. 6TH DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT Both carrying on business under the name, style and firm of Jafferjee Brothers of No.150, St. Joseph Street, Colombo 14. Page 4 of 16 Before: Hon. P. Padman Surasena, C.J., Hon. Kumudini Wickremesinghe, J. Hon. Janak De Silva, J. Counsel: Dr. Romesh de Silva, P.C. with Geethaka Goonawardene, PC and Kushlan Senevirathne for the Plaintiff-Petitioner-Appellants Navin Marapana, P.C. with Uchitha Wickremesinghe and Saumya Hettiarachchi for the 4th and 6th Defendant-Respondent-Respondents Written Submissions: 06.12.2012 and 27.11.2025 by the Plaintiff- Petitioner-Appellants 06.02.2017 and 03.12.2025 by the 4th and 6th Defendant-Respondent-Respondents Argued On: 31.10.2025 Decided On: 31.03.2026 Janak De Silva, J. This is an appeal preferred by the Plaintiff-Petitioner-Appellants (Plaintiffs) against the decision of the High Court of Civil Appeal of the Western Province (holden in Colombo) (High Court) affirming the judgment of the District Court of Colombo which held that the Plaintiffs cannot maintain the action filed against the Defendant-Respondent- Respondents (Defendants). In this action, the Plaintiffs claimed that: (i) They and their predecessors in title have been using the roadway more fully described in Schedule 3 to the plaint, (ii) They were entitled to use the said roadway by virtue of title deeds, a final decree in a partition action and by way of necessity, (iii) On or about 08.01.2001 the Defendants had obstructed the use of this roadway, Page 5 of 16 (iv) Accordingly, the Plaintiffs instituted action in the District Court of Colombo bearing No. 19174/L and obtained inter parties an interim injunction preventing the Defendants from obstructing their right of way, (v) The Defendants appealed against the grant of the interim injunction. In Jafferjee v. Linganathan [C.A.L.A. 143/2001, C.A.M. 04.06.2002] the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, (vi) However, that action was dismissed on 11.09.2002 for want of appearance by the Plaintiffs, (vii) The appeal preferred by the Plaintiffs against this judgment had to be withdrawn as it was filed out of time, (viii) After that appeal was dismissed, the Defendants had again obstructed the Plaintiffs from using the said right of way on 19.10.2010 which gave rise to the Defendants instituting the present action, (ix) The Plaintiffs in this action inter alia sought a. A declaration that they are entitled to the roadway more fully described in Schedule 3 to the plaint by way of necessity, b. An interim injunction preventing the Defendnats and their servants and agents from obstructing the Plaintiffs and their servants and agents from using the roadway described in Schedule 3 to the plaint. The learned judge of the District Court refused to grant this interim injunction as the previous action of the Plaintiffs was dismissed under Section 87(1) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and due to the Plaintiffs’ failure to establish a prima facie case in order to obtain interim relief. The Plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the High Court which refused to grant them leave to appeal and affirmed the judgment of the learned judge of the District Court. Page 6 of 16 Aggrieved, the Plaintiffs sought and obtained leave to appeal on the following questions of law: i. Whether the High Court of Civil Appeal has wrongly applied the principle of res judicata? ii. Whether the High Court of Civil Appeal failed to give its mind to the principles applicable to the granting of an interim injunction? iii. Whether the High Court of Civil Appeal failed to give its mind to the case of the Plaintiffs? iv. Whether the High Court of Civil Appeal did not apply and/or fail to consider the law relating to the right of way by necessity? The High Court further held that the Plaintiffs were precluded from maintaining the present action in view of Section 34 of the CPC which mandates that every action shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action claimed in the action. Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes any portion of, his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. The High Court held that the Plaintiffs cannot maintain the present action as they have omitted to plead the remedy of right of way by necessity in the earlier action. Finally, the High Court held that the Plaintiffs had lost the right of way they had earlier from the northern boundary due to their actions and hence cannot seek to obtain a right of way by necessity over the land of the neighbours. Question of Law No. 1 Coomaraswamy (Law of Evidence, Vol. I, 2nd ed., page 528) states that the following elements must be established in order to succeed in a plea of res judicata: (a) The former action must have been a regular action. (b) The two actions must be between the same parties or their representatives in interest (privies). Page 7 of 16 (c) The previous judgment must be a final judgment. (d) The same question or identical causes of action must have been involved in both actions. (e) The judicial tribunal pronouncing the decision must have had competent jurisdiction in that behalf. (f) The previous decision must be what in law is deemed such. (g) The particular judicial decision must have been in fact pronounced as alleged. (h) The judgment should not have been obtained by fraud or collusion. (i) If it is a foreign judgment, it should have been passed in accordance with the principles of natural justice. (j) The correctness of the decision is not a relevant consideration. Section 87(2) of the CPC states that where an action has been dismissed under this section, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh action in respect of the same cause of action. The High Court held that the prohibition in Section 87(2) acts independently of the principles applicable to res judicata and there is no necessity to consider the ingredients of res judicata in determining the issue before court. The only question to be considered is whether the cause of action in both actions is the same which was answered in the affirmative by the High Court. Let me examine the precision of the approach of the High Court. The present Section 87 of the CPC was introduced by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Law, No. 20 of 1977. Page 8 of 16 Prior to this amendment, the provision for default of the plaintiff was set out in Section 84(1) of the CPC which, according to the Legislative Enactments 1956 Revised Edition, read as follows: “(1) If the plaintiff fails appear on the day fixed for the appearance and answer of the defendant. or on the day appointed for the filling of the answer, or for the filling of the replication, or for the hearing of the action, and if the defendant on the occasion of such default of the plaintiff to appear is present in person or by proctor, and does not admit the plaintiff’s claim and does not consent to postponement of the day for the hearing of the action the court shall pass a decree nisi in the form no. 21 in the first schedule or to the like decree shall at the expiration of fourteen days from the date thereof become absolute unless the plaintiff shall have notice shown to the court good cause by affidavit or otherwise for his non appearance.” There was no provision similar to the present Section 87(2) of the CPC which explicitly states that where an action has been dismissed under this section, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh action in respect of the same cause of action. Learned President’s Counsel for the Respondents submitted that notwithstanding such absence, there is a long line of cases which held that where the plaintiff defaults in appearing within the meaning of Section 84 of the CPC (as at then) and the action is dismissed, it was a bar to a fresh action on the same cause of action. In Fernando v. Uduman [5 N.L.R. 81], A\'s action was dismissed on the ground of his absence on the trial day. On plaintiff\'s motion an order nisi was allowed on defendant to show cause why the judgment should not be re-opened. However, the plaintiff, without availing himself of this order, moved the Court for permission to institute a fresh action. It was held that the decree of dismissal entered in the old action was a bar to the new action, but that as the District Judge should have opened up the decree, his error should not stand in the way of the issues between the parties being tried. Accordingly, the Supreme Court entered a decree of dismissal in the old case and Page 9 of 16 allowed the new one to go on. Lawrie, J. held (at page 82) that so long as the decree of dismissal stood, no other action could be brought. In Palaniappa v. Gomes [11 N.L.R. 285] the plaintiff brought an action in the District Court of Colombo against the defendant, who was resident in Kalutara, on a promissory note, and having been ordered to give security for costs under section 417 of the CPC, he failed to do so. His action was dismissed under section 418 of the CPC. Subsequently the plaintiff brought an action on the same note in the District Court of Kalutara, and the defendant pleaded the dismissal of the previous action as res judicata. It was held that the dismissal of the first action operated as res judicata and barred the second action. In Dharmadasa v. Piyadasa Perera [64 N.L.R. 249] the question revolved around a default decree entered against the defendant. It was held that a decree absolute for default that has been passed against a defendant by a District Court is one to which section 207 of the CPC applies and can, therefore, operate as res judicata in a subsequent action between the same parties in respect of the same subject-matter. Nevertheless, in Herath v. The Attorney General [60 N.L.R. 193 at 221] Basnayake, C.J., having examined the provisions regulating the plea of res judicata, went on to hold as follows: “The first question that needs consideration is whether the expression \"all decrees\" includes decrees entered under section 84. Now section 207 occurs in a chapter which has a heading “Judgment and Decree\" and makes elaborate provision regarding the pronouncing of judgment, the drawing up of decrees. Section 184 provides that upon the evidence which has been duly taken or upon the facts admitted in the pleading or otherwise and after the parties have been heard either in person or by their pleaders judgment shall be pronounced in open court after notice to the parties. Section 188 provides that as soon as the judgment is pronounced a formal decree bearing the same date as the judgment shall be drawn up by the Court in the form No. 41 in the First Schedule or to the Page 10 of 16 like effect specifying in precise words the order which is made by the judgment in regard to the relief granted or other determination of the action. The succeeding sections make elaborate provisions regarding decrees in respect of immovable property, movable property, interest, specific performance, payment by instalments, set off, mesne profits, accounts etc. Section 206 provides that the decree or certified copy thereof shall constitute the sole primary evidence of the decision or order passed by the Court. The preceding provisions of the Chapter in which section 207 occurs to my mind show that the decrees spoken of in that section are decrees drawn up by the Court under section 188 after judgment has been pronounced in the manner contemplated in sections 184, 185, 186 and 187. Such decrees are final between the parties subject to appeal. Section 207 will therefore apply only to decrees pronounced after there has been an adjudication on the merits of a suit and not to decrees entered under section 84.” (emphasis added) However, Pulle, J. (at page 226) in his separate opinion did not agree with this portion of the judgment and held: “…that the dismissal of the action was a bar to a fresh action against one or other of the parties on the same cause of action, assuming that the District Judge had jurisdiction to try case No. 3632 on its substantive merits, is plain enough.” In fact, Gunasekera, J. in Dharmadasa [supra. at pages 251-252] stated as follows: “The present case is distinguishable from that of Herath v. The Attorney-General (supra), being a case of a decree entered after there had been an adjudication on the merits of the suit in that there was an exparte trial under section 85 of the Code. In any event I respectfully disagree with the view that the term “decree\" as used in Chapter 20 of the Code must be given the meaning that is given to it in the passage quoted from the learned Chief Justice\'s judgment. Page 11 of 16 Some of the consequences of that interpretation would be that a Court would have no power to correct a clerical or arithmetical mistake in a decree entered under section 84 or 85 ; the requirements laid down in sections 190 and 191 as to the contents of decrees relating respectively to immovable property and to the delivery of movable property would not apply to a decree entered under section 85 ; and the provisions of section 192, empowering a court to include in a money decree an order for the payment of interest, would not apply to such a decree if it was entered after an exparte trial. I do not think that there is anything in the context to suggest that the legislature intended that the word \" decree \" should be given a meaning that would lead to such consequences.” The learned President’s Counsel for the Defendants submitted that the amendment to Section 87(2) of the CPC was specifically introduced to put to rest the controversy surrounding what he described to be the obiter dictum of Basnayake, C.J. in Herath [supra.]. There is merit in the position taken by the learned President’s Counsel for the Defendants. I have no doubt that the amendment made in 1977 to Section 87 of the CPC, cleared any lingering doubts on whether a default order made against a plaintiff suffices to prevent a fresh action being instituted on the same cause of action. The amendment introduced by Section 87(2) of the CPC operates as a statutory bar and is distinct and independent from the concept of res judicata enshrined in Sections 34 and 207 of the CPC. It does not require adjudication on the merits of the case. Section 87(2) is a stand-alone section and the only requirements for its application is that there was a default on the part of the plaintiff and the the cause of action in both actions is the same. The Plaintiffs sought to impugn the judgment of the High Court on a twofold basis. They contend firstly, that they have a new cause of action based on the right of necessity, and therefore Section 87(2) of the CPC has no bearing on this action; and Page 12 of 16 secondly that the actionable wrong springs from a different date to the violation in the first action and is of a continuing nature. It was further submitted that Section 40(d) of the CPC requires a plain and concise statement of the circumstances constituting each cause of action and where and when it arose. Thus the Plaintiffs claimed that a cause of action has to relate to a date on which it arose. Although the obstruction may be the same, each date of the obstruction constitutes a separate and different cause of action. The cause of action in this case is the obstruction that took place on 19.10.2010. Moreover, this action relates to a new cause of action, namely the cause of action of a road way by necessity. Let me first examine the meaning of cause of action. Plaintiffs relied heavily on the definition of cause of action in Section 5 of the CPC which reads: “cause of action” is the wrong for the prevention or redress of which an action may be brought, and includes the denial of a right, the refusal to fulfil an obligation, the neglect to perform a duty, and the infliction of an affirmative injury. As correctly pointed out by Lascelles, A.C.J., in Pless Pol v. Lady de Soyza and Others [9 N.L.R. 316 at 319-320]: “The term \"action\" is defined as \"a proceeding for the prevention or redress of a wrong.\" It is clear to me that the words \"the wrong for the prevention or redress of which an action may be brought\" states generally what is connoted by the term \"cause of action\" the remainder of the sentence enumerates some - not necessarily all (for the word used is \"includes\") - of the acts of defendants which constitute causes of action.” Hence a cause of action is the wrong for the prevention or redress of which an action may be brought. The wrong includes but is not limited to the denial of a right, the refusal to fulfil an obligation, the neglect to perform a duty, and the infliction of an affirmative injury. Page 13 of 16 What is the wrong the Plaintiffs sought to prevent or redress in the earlier District Court of Colombo case No. 19174/L? They pleaded that they have acquired a right of way by prescription and sought a declaration that they are entitled to a right of way over the land more fully described in Schedule 3 in the plaint filed in that action. The wrong they described is the act of the Defendants obstructing and/or preventing the Plaintiffs from using the said roadway (right of way). No doubt that right was obtained by prescription. However, the fact that the Plaintiffs claimed a right of way by prescription does not mean that the wrong was the violation of the right of way acquired by prescription. The right violated is the right of way claimed by the Plaintiffs. Let me further expound this delinking of the right of way and the mode by which such right is created or acquired by examining the servitudes recognised in Roman-Dutch law and the way in which they are created. According to Voet (7.1.1) a servitude is a real right enjoyed by one person over or in respect of the property of another, whereby the latter is required to suffer the former to do, or himself to abstain from doing, something upon such property for the former’s advantage. Servitudes are either real or praedial servitude or personal servitude (Voet 7.1.1). Real or Praedial Servitudes are where the person for whose benefit such right is constituted and enjoy it as incidental to and inseparable from immovable property of which he is the owner. Real servitudes can be further divided into rustic and urban servitudes although this distinction does not have any practical consequences. Personal servitudes on the other hand allows the person for whose benefit such right is granted to enjoy it personally without reference to any property of which he is owner. Page 14 of 16 Right of way is a Real Servitude. Lee (An Introduction to Roman-Dutch Law, 1915 Clarendon Press, page 150) explains that a way of necessity, giving necessary access to a public road, is in fact a right of way. Real Servitudes can be acquired by agreement, prescription, last will, judicial decree and by operation of law. The contention of the Plaintiffs is based upon a focus on the mode by which the right of way was acquired. However, in Samichi v. Pieris [16 N.L.R. 257 at 261] Lascelles C.J., opined that “The true “cause of action”… is the right in virtue of which this claim is made, the foundation of the claim”. Where identical rights are claimed in subsequent proceedings, they would be considered the same cause of action. This is illustrated in Dingiri Menika v. Punchi Mahatmaya [13 N.L.R. 59] where subsequent to the plaintiff’s right to inherit from her father being decided against her in an action, she instituted a second action in respect of a different land forming a part of the same inheritance. It was held that the decision in the first case was res judicata of the present action. It was further held that for the purpose of determining whether or not two causes of action are the same, Court have to look not to the mere form in which the action is brought, but to the grounds of the plaint, and to the media on which the plaintiff asks for judgment. In the present case, the Plaintiffs’ averments in the two plaints of the District Court suits are nearly identical, and the claims are based on the same right of way. The only differences in the present case are the Plaintiffs claiming a right of way by necessity and asserting a violation springing from a different date of obstruction. As the learned President’s Counsel for the Defendants submitted, accepting the argument of the Plaintiffs that each separate obstruction gives right to a new cause of action, leads to absurdity. Plaintiffs will then be entitled to file a new action each day even if each action is dismissed for want of appearance. Question of law No. 1 is answered in the negative. Page 15 of 16 Question of Law No. 2 I will first delve into whether the Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case in order to be entitled to an interim injunction. For this, the Court needs to be prima facie satisfied that the Plaintiffs have a legitimate legal right to seek the relief they have prayed for. However, as correctly identified by the learned judges of the High Court, the property to which the Plaintiffs claim title (Lot 4) has an alternate roadway to the North through Lot 5 of Plan No. 101. In fact, it was through a subsequent subdivision of Lot 4 by the Plaintiffs that some of the subdivided lots lost access to this roadway. Where a party with access to a roadway has caused such a subdivision effectively landlocking the subdivided lots, they are not then entitled to claim a right of way over their neighbour’s land [G.R.Godamune v. Magilin Nona (C.A. 396/2000(F), C.A.M. 28.4.2009), Suppu Namasivayam v. Kanapathipillai (32 N.L.R. 44), K.Nagalingam v. Kathirasipillai (58 N.L.R. 371), Costa v. Rowell (1992) 1 Sri.L.R. 5]. The Plaintiff has claimed that the test for the right of way of necessity is assessing the actual necessities of the case, and has cited several authorities to the effect that where an alternative route does not constitute reasonable access to a public road the plaintiff should be granted a more direct approach to the road. However, none of these authorities relate to instances in which the Plaintiffs have landlocked their property through their own action. Thus, the Plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case in order to be entitled to an interim injunction in their favour, as rightly recognized by the learned judges of the High Court. Question of law No. 2 is answered in the negative. The reasons expounded above requires that questions of law Nos. 3 and 4 should also be answered in the negative. Page 16 of 16 For all the foregoing reasons, I affirm the judgment of the High Court of Civil Appeal dated 02.02.2012. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT P. Padman Surasena, C.J. I agree. CHIEF JUSTICE Kumudini Wickremesinghe, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT 📄 Download
31 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/188/2019
3. S.J. Nandawathi (Deceased) 3А. J.A. Nandasena 3B. J.A. Kusuma Jayasooriya 3С. Asanka Rajapaksha Alawwa Kade, Kiriwallapitiya, Rambukkana. 4. J.A. Siril Alawwa Kade, Kiriwallapitiya, Rambukkana. 3RD & 4TH RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS-PETITIONERS- APPELLANTS Vs. W.H. Mayya Godagandeniya, Rambukkana. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT 1. S.H. Rana Godagandeniya, Rambukkana. 2. Thissa Beligodapitiya Beligodapitiya, Walawwa, Godagandeniya, Rambukkana 5. W.A. Punyawardana, Weerasooriya Stores, Kiriwallapitiya, Rambukkana. 1ST, 2ND AND 5TH RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS 3. S.J. Nandawathi (Deceased) 3А. J.A. Nandasena 3B. J.A. Kusuma Jayasooriya 3С. Asanka Rajapaksha Alawwa Kade, Kiriwallapitiya, Rambukkana. 4. J.A. Siril Alawwa Kade, Kiriwallapitiya, Rambukkana. 3RD & 4TH RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS-PETITIONERS- APPELLANTS Vs. W.H. Mayya Godagandeniya, Rambukkana. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT 1. S.H. Rana Godagandeniya, Rambukkana. 2. Thissa Beligodapitiya Beligodapitiya, Walawwa, Godagandeniya, Rambukkana 5. W.A. Punyawardana, Weerasooriya Stores, Kiriwallapitiya, Rambukkana. 1ST, 2ND AND 5TH RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna Page 1 of 11 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006, against a judgement delivered by the Provincial High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Section 5A of the said Act. W.H. Mayya Godagandeniya, Rambukkana. PLAINTIFF Vs. 1. S.H. Rana Godagandeniya, Rambukkana. 2. Thissa Beligodapitiya Beligodapitiya, Walawwa, Godagandeniya, Rambukkana. 3. S.J. Nandawathi Alawwa Kade, Kiriwallapitiya, Rambukkana. 4. J.A. Siril Alawwa Kade, Kiriwallapitiya, Rambukkana. 5. W.A. Punyawardana Weerasooriya Stores, Kiriwallapitiya, Rambukkana. RESPONDENTS SC Appeal No. 188/ 2019 SC/ SPL/ LA/ 204/ 2017 WP/COL/ HCASA/ 01/2016 Agrarian Board of Review Case No.AGBR/KA/2015/07/09(19) Page 2 of 11 AND W.H. Mayya Godagandeniya, Rambukkana PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT 1. S.H. Rana Godagandeniya, Rambukkana. 2. Thissa Beligodapitiya Beligodapitiya, Walawwa, Godagandeniya, Rambukkana. 3. S.J. Nandawathi Alawwa Kade, Kiriwallapitiya, Rambukkana. 4. J.A. Siril Alawwa Kade, Kiriwallapitiya, Rambukkana. 5. W.A. Punyawardana Weerasooriya Stores, Kiriwallapitiya, Rambukkana RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS AND BETWEEN 3. S.J. Nandawathi Alawwa Kade, Kiriwallapitiya, Rambukkana. Appearing through her power of Attorney Holder C.S.M. Rajapakshe of Alawwa Kade, Kiriwallapitiya, Rambukkana. Page 3 of 11 4. J.A. Siril Alawwa Kade, Kiriwallapitiya, Rambukkana. 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS-PETITIONERS Vs. W.H. Mayya Godagandeniya, Rambukkana. PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT- RESPONDENT 1. S.H. Rana Godagandeniya, Rambukkana. 2. Thissa Beligodapitiya Beligodapitiya, Walawwa, Godagandeniya, Rambukkana 5. W.A. Punyawardana Weerasooriya Stores, Kiriwallapitiya, Rambukkana 1ST, 2ND AND 5TH RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN 3. S.J. Nandawathi (Deceased) 3А. J.A. Nandasena 3B. J.A. Kusuma Jayasooriya Page 4 of 11 3С. Asanka Rajapaksha Alawwa Kade, Kiriwallapitiya, Rambukkana. 4. J.A. Siril Alawwa Kade, Kiriwallapitiya, Rambukkana. 3RD & 4TH RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS-PETITIONERS- APPELLANTS Vs. W.H. Mayya Godagandeniya, Rambukkana. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT 1. S.H. Rana Godagandeniya, Rambukkana. 2. Thissa Beligodapitiya Beligodapitiya, Walawwa, Godagandeniya, Rambukkana 5. W.A. Punyawardana, Weerasooriya Stores, Kiriwallapitiya, Rambukkana. 1ST, 2ND AND 5TH RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS Page 5 of 11 Before: Yasantha Kodagoda PC., J. Achala Wengappuli J. Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna J. Counsel: Manohara de Silva, PC with Hirosha Munasinghe for the 4th Respondent- Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant. Dr. Sunil Abeyratne with Eshini Perera, Dulshani Hemachandra and Dulmini Adikari for the Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent-Respondent and for the 2nd Respondent-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent. Written Submissions: 4th Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant - 13 October 2020, 10 May 2021, 13 March 2026 Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent-Respondent – 19 October 2020 Argued on: 30 January 2026 Decided on: 31 March 2026 Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna J. The proceedings originated from a complaint lodged with the Agrarian Service Commissioner, alleging that the 3rd and 4th Respondents-Respondents-Petitioners- Appellants, namely S.J. Nandawathie and J.A. Siril (hereinafter referred to as the ‘3rd and 4th Respondents’), had unlawfully dispossessed the Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent- Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Plaintiff’) of their rights as tenant cultivator over the subject paddy land known as “Uda Kumbura”. The Plaintiff contended that the 3rd and 4th Respondents had forcibly entered the land and taken over its cultivation, despite the Plaintiff\'s prior occupation and cultivation of it. Following an inquiry, the inquiry officer rejected the said complaint by order dated 1 July 1999. Page 6 of 11 Dissatisfied with this decision, the Plaintiff appealed to the Agrarian Board of Review. On 20 January 2016, the said Board issued an order directing the restoration of the Plaintiff to possession of the subject paddy land. The 3rd and 4th Respondents subsequently appealed this order to the Provincial High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo (“High Court”). At the outset of the proceedings before the High Court, the Plaintiff raised a preliminary objection, contending that the Provincial High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo lacked jurisdiction to entertain and determine the matter. By its order dated 1 August 2017, the High Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, holding that any such appeal should properly have been filed in the Provincial High Court of the Sabaragamuwa Province. Pursuant to the instant Application before this Court, the Questions of Law upon which the Leave to Appeal was granted can be articulated, based on the contents of paragraph 7(b) of the Petition dated 11 September 2017, as follows: “Did the High Court fail to properly consider that the order impugned before the High Court of Colombo was an Order of the Agrarian Board of Review of Colombo dated 20/01/2016, and therefore misdirect itself and err in law by holding that the High Court of Colombo had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal in view of Section 7(6C) of the Agrarian Development Act No. 46 of 2000 as amended by Agrarian Development (Amendment) Act No. 46 of 2011?” Summary of the Submissions of the ‘3rd and 4th Respondents’ The 3rd and 4th Respondents (who are the Appellants of the instant Application) contend that, since the order dated 20 January 2016 was issued by the Agrarian Board of Review in Colombo, any appeal against it must be lodged with the Provincial High Court exercising jurisdiction over that province, namely, the Provincial High Court of the Western Province sitting in Colombo. They submit that the High Court erred in law and misdirected itself by ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, particularly in light of Section 7(6C) of the Agrarian Development Act No.46 of 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), as amended by the Agrarian Development (Amendment) Act No.46 of 2011. The said Section 7(6C): \"The landlord or the person evicted who is aggrieved by the decision of the Board of Review may, within thirty days of the communication of the decision to him, Page 7 of 11 appeal to the High Court of the Province against such decision on a question of law. A copy of the appeal shall be sent to the Commissioner-General by registered post at the time when the appeal is made.\" The 3rd and 4th Respondents further argue that, pursuant to Section 7(6A) of the Act, appeals from decisions of the Agrarian Tribunal are submitted to the Commissioner- General, who then refers them to an appropriate panel. Consequently, the selection of the Colombo Board of Review (or any other Board of Review) rests with the Commissioner- General. They assert that the Board of Review so designated by the Commissioner- General possesses the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter in accordance with Section 7(6A) of the Act. The Plaintiff’s Contention The Plaintiff asserts that he duly appealed, by petition dated 30 July 1999, to the Agrarian Board of Review of the Sabaragamuwa Province against the order of the relevant inquiry officer. He maintains that this appeal was properly lodged with the Sabaragamuwa Board of Review in strict compliance with Section 5(6) of the relevant legislation (Agrarian Services Act No. 58 of 1979 amended by Amendment Act No. 04 of 1991), as the land in question lies within the territorial boundaries of the Sabaragamuwa Province. The Plaintiff further submits that, subsequent to the filing of his appeal, the Agrarian Services (Amendment) Act No. 4 of 1991, together with its parent enactment (Act No. 58 of 1979), was repealed and replaced by the aforesaid Agrarian Development Act No. 46 of 2000 (‘Act’). Consequently, the Plaintiff contends that his appeal, which was pending before the Sabaragamuwa Board of Review at the time, was automatically transferred to the Agrarian Tribunal (introduced by the said Act No. 46 of 2000) in Colombo, probably the first Tribunal established under the said Act, which came into operation on 18 August 2000. Notably, Section 99(2)(e) of the said Act expressly prescribes the transitional procedure applicable to any applications or inquiries that remained pending under the Agrarian Services Act No. 58 of 1979, and its amendments as at the date of commencement of the aforesaid Act (Agrarian Development Act No. 46 of 2000). In accordance with this provision, any proceedings then pending before an inquiring officer or a Board of Review Page 8 of 11 under the repealed legislation are deemed to have been instituted before the Agrarian Tribunal established under the said Act and are required to be concluded by that Tribunal. The Plaintiff argues that this transfer was effected solely for the limited purpose of enabling the completion of proceedings already commenced under the former regime. He submits that the transitional provisions do not operate retrospectively to alter substantive rights of appeal existing under the old law. In particular, the Plaintiff maintains that the appeal rights conferred by Section 42B(14) of the repealed legislation (Act No 58 of 1979) continue to apply to decisions rendered in respect of such transferred proceedings. According to the Plaintiff, the 3rd and 4th Respondents possess no right of appeal against the order of the Agrarian Board of Review of Colombo, dated 20 January 2016 (at page 23 of the brief). The Plaintiff, therefore, contends that the appeal lodged by the Respondents before the Provincial High Court of the Western Province sitting in Colombo is unlawful and that the said High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it. Analysis The core issue for determination by this Court is the proper appellate forum for a party aggrieved by a decision of the Agrarian Tribunal in Colombo, to which the Plaintiff\'s application ( originally pending before the Agrarian Board of Review in the Sabaragamuwa Province) stood transferred upon the enactment of the said Act (Act No. 46 of 2000). As the Plaintiff rightly submitted, proceedings instituted before the Agrarian Tribunal established under the Act must be concluded by that Tribunal. Upon careful scrutiny of Section 99 of the said Act (Act No. 46 of 2000), which repealed the Agrarian Services Act, No. 58 of 1979, and Section 7(6C) as introduced by the Agrarian Development (Amendment) Act, No. 46 of 2011, it is evident that the legislative intent underlying the transitional arrangements was to ensure the seamless continuation and completion of all pending proceedings before an inquiry officer or a Board of Review under the repealed Act (Act No. 58 of 1979). Such proceedings were to proceed and conclude before the Agrarian Tribunal without abatement, discontinuance, or prejudice to the parties upon the applications arising from the repeal of Act No. 58 of 1979. The legislature did not, in the amending Act No. 46 of 2011 or otherwise, make express provision altering the appellate pathway for proceedings pending at the commencement of Act No. 46 of 2000 in a manner that would override the clear jurisdictional framework Page 9 of 11 established under the new regime, including the right of appeal to the High Court of the Province as stipulated in Section 7(6C) of the said Act. Section 7(6C) of the Act expressly provides that an aggrieved party may appeal to the \"High Court of the Province\" against such a decision. The statutory language clearly directs that an appeal lies to the High Court of the Province in which the decision under challenge was rendered. Once the Commissioner-General refers a matter to a particular Board of Review, that Board acquires jurisdiction over the dispute. In this instance, the referral to the Colombo Board of Review necessarily entails that any appeal against its decision must be preferred to the respective Provincial High Court of the Western Province. Furthermore, the Plaintiff raised no objection or reservation whatsoever regarding the transfer or referral of the appeal to the Colombo Board of Revi ew. It follows that, where the Board of Review in question is located in Colombo, Section 7(6C) mandates that any appeal be lodged with the Provincial High Court of the Western Province. In light of the reasons given above I cannot agree with the Plaintiff’s arguments based on Section 42B(14) of the Act No. 58 of 1979. Moreover, the Plaintiff\'s contention that the appeal was originally lodged with the Sabaragamuwa Board of Review and that transitional provisions under Section 99(2)(e) of the Act automatically transferred it to the Agrarian Tribunal, thereby preserving appeal rights under the repealed legislation and precluding any right of appeal to the High Court, is misconceived. Conclusion In terms of Section 7(6C) of the Act, an aggrieved party may, within thirty days of the communication of such a decision, appeal to the High Court of the Province against the decision on a question of law. The statutory provision unequivocally directs that the appeal lies to the High Court of the Province in which the decision was rendered. Since the decision emanated from the Colombo Agrarian Tribunal, the appropriate appellate forum is the Provincial High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo. The transitional mechanism discussed above does not operate to divest the jurisdiction expressly vested in the Provincial High Court by the clear language of Section 7(6C), particularly where the Agrarian Tribunal concerned is situated in Colombo. In any event, the question further arises as to which Provincial High Court, among those within the Page 10 of 11 relevant Province, such an appeal properly lies. This issue has been considered and resolved by the Supreme Court in L.S.I. Fernando v. Jinasena (Pvt) Ltd., SC/Appeal/30/2023, SC Minutes of 03 July 2025. The Supreme Court in the said case of L.S.I. Fernando, took the view that a strict literal interpretation of Sections 3 and 5A(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990, allowing appeals from a Provincial court of first instance to be filed in any High Court within the same Province, would encourage forum shopping, cause uneven caseloads, inconvenience litigants, create jurisdictional confusion, undermine judicial impartiality, and disrupt the administrative structure of the courts (including the structure of the Court system amplified through the orders made by the relevant Minister demarcating judicial zones etc). The Supreme Court further held in the said case: “Regardless of all the provisions cited above, it is apparent that no rules or regulations exist defining the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts established under Article 154P in order to assign appellate and revisionary work systematically among such Courts situated within a particular Province. I am aware that currently in Sri Lanka for administrative convenience, no distinction is maintained among several High Courts in a single station when allocating work. Even the impugned order has been issued by High Court No. 8 of Colombo despite the caption of the respective Petition of the Respondent- Petitioner-Appellant referring to “the High Court of Western Province holden in Colombo- exercising Civil Appellate jurisdiction”. Considering the lack of clear guidelines, I take the view that the criteria outlined in the orders made under Section 3 of the said Judicature Act, by which Sri Lanka has been divided into Judicial Zones, Judicial Districts and Judicial Divisions can be followed with necessary alterations, although such orders are concerning the High Courts (when functioning as a court of first instance) that are identified in Section 2(a) of the said Judicature Act. This arrangement may be maintained until policymakers establish and implement suitable rules and regulations.” For the reasons set out above, I hold that the High Court erred in law by holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal preferred by the 3rd and 4th Respondents. The Order of the High Court dated 1 August 2017 is set aside. Thus, I proceed to answer the Page 11 of 11 above Question of Law upon which this Court granted leave to Appeal in favour of the 3rd and 4th Respondents. Accordingly, the Order of the High Court dated 1 August 2017 is hereby set aside and the Provincial High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo is directed to hear and determine the appeal lodged by the said 3rd and 4th Respondents expeditiously, according to law. The Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The parties shall bear their own costs in this Court. Judge of the Supreme Court Yasantha Kodagoda PC. J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court Achala Wengappuli J. I agree. Judge of the Supreme Court 📄 Download
31 Mar 2026 SC/FR/311/2015 AND SC/FR/318/2015
1. Nuwan Bopage No. 30/4, Pansalhena Road, Meethotamulla, Wellampitiya. 2. Keertiratna Perera No. 15/1, 1st Lane, Jatika Niwasa Idama, Wellampitiya. 3. D. A. Hemapala No. 31, Pansalhena Road, Wellampitiya. 4. Mohamed Saheed Mohideen No. 316, Meethotamulla Road, Wellampitiya. 5. Nalin Dammika Perera No. 24, Pansalhena Road, Wellampitiya. Etc.... 1. Nuwan Bopage No. 30/4, Pansalhena Road, Meethotamulla, Wellampitiya. 2. Keertiratna Perera No. 15/1, 1st Lane, Jatika Niwasa Idama, Wellampitiya. 3. D. A. Hemapala No. 31, Pansalhena Road, Wellampitiya. 4. Mohamed Saheed Mohideen No. 316, Meethotamulla Road, Wellampitiya. 5. Nalin Dammika Perera No. 24, Pansalhena Road, Wellampitiya. Etc....
⚖ Hon. Justice Yasantha Kodagoda, PC 📄 Download
31 Mar 2026 SC/FR/6/2018
Pathmasiri Dissanayakalage Priyalal Chaminda Sirisena, 238/10, School Lane, Kanduboda, Delgoda. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Madushanka Dias, Officer in Charge of Miscellaneous Complaints Unit, Police Station, Negombo. 2. Wootler Udayakumara, Headquarters Inspector, Negombo Police Station, Negombo. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01 4. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS Pathmasiri Dissanayakalage Priyalal Chaminda Sirisena, 238/10, School Lane, Kanduboda, Delgoda. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Madushanka Dias, Officer in Charge of Miscellaneous Complaints Unit, Police Station, Negombo. 2. Wootler Udayakumara, Headquarters Inspector, Negombo Police Station, Negombo. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01 4. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Janak De Silva Page 1 of 20 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Article 17 read along with Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Pathmasiri Dissanayakalage Priyalal Chaminda Sirisena, 238/10, School Lane, Kanduboda, Delgoda. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Madushanka Dias, Officer in Charge of Miscellaneous Complaints Unit, Police Station, Negombo. 2. Wootler Udayakumara, Headquarters Inspector, Negombo Police Station, Negombo. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. S.C. (F.R.) Application No. 06/2018 Page 2 of 20 4. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS BEFORE : P. Padman Surasena, C.J., Kumudini Wickremasinghe, J. Janak De Silva, J. COUNSEL : Lakshan Dias for Petitioner Rajiv Goonetillake, SDSG, for 1st to 4th Respondent WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS : 30.11.2021 by Petitioner 02.06.2020 by Respondent ARGUED ON : 28.02.2023 DECIDED ON : 31.03.2026 Janak De Silva, J. The Petitioner holds a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree from the University of Colombo and is an Attorney-at-Law. He had been in practice for about 11 years when the incident forming the subject matter of this application occurred. He alleges that the 1st and 2nd Respondents prevented him from performing his professional obligations when he sought to represent the interest of Ms. H.P.D. Princes Angelina Sanduni (Client) at an inquiry held at the Negombo Police Station. Leave to proceed has been granted under Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution. Page 3 of 20 Version of the Petitioner In November, 2017 the Client had been referred to the Petitioner by Rev. Father Sarath Iddamalgoda and Rev. Sister Noel Christine seeking his assistance. The Client had been a victim of domestic violence. The Client met the Petitioner accompanied by her Grand Mother, Mrs. Mary Margret Fernando (Grand Mother) and another person. During the consultation, the Client revealed that she has been going through continuous harassment at the hands of her abusive husband Kalamullage Dileepa Deshan Fernando (Husband), and that she had left her matrimonial house and was living in hiding at the time. The Client had once escaped from the Husband and moved to the residence of her Grand Mother. However, the Husband had taken her back forcibly after threatening her and her family members. The Husband had lodged a complaint at the Police Station claiming that the Client had left home and that the Grand Mother was keeping her against her will. The Grand Mother had already provided a statement to the Police on this complaint. However, the 1st Respondent had directed that she produces the Client. The Client informed the Petitioner that her Husband was a member of a business family in Negombo area and that she was sceptical about the impartiality of the officers of the Negombo Police Station at an inquiry on the said complaint. The Petitioner realised that the Client was worried about her safety as the Husband could easily trace her whereabouts once she appears at the inquiry. The Client sought his legal assistance to file an action on domestic violence against the Husband to obtain a protection order form the Magistrates Court of Negombo and to file for a divorce. Page 4 of 20 Accordingly, the Petitioner filed Case No. L 55617 in the Magistrates Court of Negombo and obtained a protection order on 05.12.2017 under Section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act No. 34 of 2005 (Act) against the Husband. The proceedings of that day indicate that the learned Magistrate had issued an interim protection order preventing the Husband from threatening the Client, preventing him from entering the temporary residence of the Client and preventing the Husband from using any compulsion by telephone. Since he had obtained the protection order and the Police inquiry was on 07.12.2017, the Petitioner instructed his Client and Grand Mother to go to the Police without fear. However, as the Client and Grand Mother were still worried about the impartiality of the Police Officers, they sought the assistance of the Petitioner at the Police inquiry. Accordingly, he accompanied both of them to the Negombo Police Station at 9 a.m. on 07.12.2017. The Husband along with his mother were also present. The parties were summoned to the room of the 1st Respondent, who was the Officer-in-Charge of the Miscellaneous Complaints Unit. At the beginning of the inquiry, the Petitioner informed the 1st Respondent that the Client has left her Husband due to various harassments and that the Client is not being held by anyone by force and that the Client would give a statement clarifying her position. The Client also informed the 1st Respondent that she had left her Husband due to harassments, and that she left home on her free will. The Petitioner further informed the 1st Respondent that the Magistrates Court of Negombo has already issued an order against the Husband and the Client was seeking a divorce. At that stage, the 1st Respondent asked the Petitioner and Grand Mother to leave the room. Thereafter the 1st Respondent had pressurised the Client to reconcile with the Husband and stated in colloquial language that she will become a redundant coin if she fails to do so. Page 5 of 20 After sometime, the 1st Respondent summoned the Petitioner and Grand Mother back to his room. The Husband had asked the Client to return the smart phone which was used by her claiming that it was purchased by him. The Petitioner informed that in view of the on-going action in the Magistrates Court, the mobile phone of the Client contained important evidence of the threats made by the Husband and that such evidence would be lost if the mobile phone was returned to the Husband. Nevertheless, the 1st Respondent ordered the Client to return the mobile phone to the Husband before 12 noon the same day and was ordered to make a statement. During the inquiry, the mother of the Husband blamed the Petitioner and Client using foul language and the 1st Respondent merely allowed her to continue the verbal abuse. The 1st Petitioner asked for a visiting card of the Petitioner and the Grand Mother gave the visiting card of the Petitioner which was with her. The Grand Mother went to her residence to bring the mobile phone while the Client was making a statement. While the Petitioner and Client were waiting at the Police Station until the return of the Grand Mother, the 2nd Respondent, the Headquarters Inspector, came to them and inquired about the issue. After the Grand Mother returned to the Police Station with the mobile phone, the 2nd Respondent summoned the parties to his room for an inquiry again. The 1st Respondent approached the 2nd Respondent and made certain statements in favour of the Husband in a bias manner. At that stage, the 2nd Respondent asked the Petitioner and Grand Mother to leave the room. Thereafter the door of the room was closed and only the 1st and 2nd Respondents and the Client and Husband were in the room. The 2nd Respondent then induced the Client to return to her husband’s home and advised the Husband saying \"එහෙනම් අද හම්කිව හෙනිහිල්ලා රෑට කිරි එකක් බී ලා දරුවක් ෙදපන් \'\'. The 2nd Respondent compelled the Client to hold hands with her Husband and hug him. Page 6 of 20 After sometime, the Client and Husband were sent out of the room and the Petitioner and Grand Mother were summoned to the room again. Then the 2nd Respondent started to blame and curse the Petitioner and the legal professionals as a whole saying \"හම් වහේ කුරුළු කූඩු කැඩිලා යන්හන් හදමව්පිහයෝ නි සා , ඒ වහේම නීති ඥහයෝ නි සා . හම් නීති ඥයන්ට දිට් ඨධම්මහව්පදනීය කර්මය පළ හදන්නට ඕනෑ\". The Petitioner and his Client and her Grand Mother left the Police Station after handing over the mobile phone to the husband. The 1st Petitioner has given the contact details of the Petitioner to a relative of the Husband. As a result around 12.35 p.m. that day, the Petitioner received a call from mobile number 0777 388828. The caller claimed to be with the 1st Respondent at that moment and stated that the issue should be settled out of Court. The Petitioner was informed that the caller was an uncle of the Husband. Around 1.44 p.m. on the same day, the Petitioner received a call from the Grand Mother stating that a group of persons including the Husband had raided the house where the Client was staying. The Petitioner immediately called mobile number 0777 388828 and found that the uncle of the of the Husband was also in the group that had gone to the house of the Client. This group threatened to kill the Client, Grand Mother and the Petitioner. The Petitioner has made a written complaint to the National Police Commission about the incident. The Petitioner claims that the 1st and 2nd Respondents have by their acts or omissions infringed the rights of the Petitioner to engage in a lawful profession as guaranteed by Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution. Page 7 of 20 Version of the 1st Respondent On or about 30.11.2017, a complaint was made by the Husband, Kalamullage Dileepa Deshan Fernando. In response to this complaint, the 1st Respondent summoned the relevant parties to be present on 07.12.2017. The Petitioner represented the Client at the inquiry and made submissions. After he made submissions, the 1st Respondent requested only the couple who were having a marital dispute to remain in the room to ascertain their views without the influence of the Husband’s mother, Grand Mother and the Petitioner. The 1st Respondent merely asked the couple as to why they cannot live together. When the Client indicated that she was unwilling to live with the Husband, he called the others back to the room. This fact was recorded in the settlement entry made at 9.40 a.m. that day. The Husband asked the Client for his phone. The 1st Respondent inquired from the Client if she was willing to return the phone, to which she agreed. The Grand Mother returned home to bring the phone. The phone was thereafter handed over to the Husband after the SIM was removed by the Client in the presence of the 1st Respondent. After the 1st Respondent entered the settlement entry, he received a message to send the parties to the office of the 2nd Respondent. At this stage the inquiry was concluded and the settlement entry had been made. The 2nd Respondent wanted to speak to the parties. The 1st Respondent also attended the office of the 2nd Respondent and explained what took place at the inquiry. He denies that he made statements in favour of any party or in a biased manner. The 1st Respondent is aware of the complaint made by the Petitioner to the National Police Commission. He was summoned and has given his response to the said complaint. Page 8 of 20 Version of the 2nd Respondent A lady unknown to the 2nd Respondent came to his office and informed that her 23 years old son, who had been married for four years, was having a marital dispute and requested him to intervene in the marital dispute. As the 1st Respondent had already met the parties, the 2nd Respondent asked the 1st Respondent to bring all the parties before him to discuss the matter. The Husband informed the 2nd Respondent that he wished to speak to him with the Client on this personal matter. In the circumstances, the 2nd Respondent requested all others to leave the room. The wife consented to this arrangement and remained in the room and as such the discussion that followed was a consensual discussion. All persons cooperated with this arrangement. The 2nd Respondent did so to respect their privacy on a family matter. The 2nd Respondent advised the parties that they were a young couple and that they should try to resolve their marital disputes amicably. The 2nd Respondent denies asking the parties to hold hands or embrace each other as suggested by the Petitioner and Client. After discussing with the young couple, the 2nd Respondent invited the others to return to the room. The 2nd Respondent informed all the parties that he had advised the young couple to amicably resolve their disputes. He had further informed them that there was no more he could do using his good office and any further dispute would have to be resolved in Court. The 2nd Respondent did not conduct a second inquiry. A formal inquiry had been held by the 1st Respondent and had been concluded by the time the parties came to meet him. Page 9 of 20 The Petitioner accompanied the Client to the Police Station and assisted her to make a statement and in the circumstances the Petitioner was not prevented from performing his duty to his client. Analysis In Perera v. Jayawickrema [(1985) 1 Sri LR 285 at 323], it was held that while Article 14(1)(g) recognises a general right in every citizen to do work of a particular kind and of his choice, it does not confer the right to hold a particular job or to occupy a particular post of one’s choice. Article 14(1)(g) confers a fundamental right on an Attorney-at-Law to represent the interest of his client in a forum where he is entitled to do so. The Police (Appearance of Attorneys-at-Law at Police Stations) Rules, 2012 (Rules) have been made by the Inspector-General of Police under Section 55 of the Police Ordinance and published in Gazette Extraordinary No. 1758/36 dated 18.05.2012. Rule 3(1) states that any Attorney-at-Law who enters a Police Station for the purpose of representing and watching the interests of a person who is the client of such Attorney-at- Law, shall be treated cordially and courteously and given a fair and patient hearing by the Police Officers attached to such Police Station. This is a clear acknowledgement that an Attorney-at-Law is entitled to represent his client at any Police Station. Accordingly, the Petitioner should have been treated cordially and courteously and given a fair and patient hearing by both the 1st and 2nd Respondents. This Rule is an amplification of the fundamental right guaranteed to an Attorney-at-law by Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution. I may add in passing that the Rules came to be formulated consequent to the terms of settlement entered in D.W.C. Mohotti v. Upul Seneviratne, OIC, Bambalapitiya and Others [S.C.F.R. 527/2008, S.C.M. 27.04.2009]. Page 10 of 20 The SVASTI of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka assures to the People inter alia Justice as the intangible heritage that guarantees the dignity and well-being of succeeding generations of the People of Sri Lanka. Many democratic structures and institutions form essential components of the quest for Justice. The legal profession forms an indispensable part of this system of administration of justice. Similarly, the law enforcement officers also form an essential component of this system. These two branches must work together in ensuring that justice is meted out. This requires extending courtesy to each other in the exercise of their respective functions. The Rules reflect this obligation on the part of the Police officers towards an Attorney-at- Law. Similarly, all Attorney-at-Laws must extend courtesy to Police Officers in the discharge of their duties. This case is not about an omission on the part of the Petitioner. On the contrary the Petitioner complains that both the 1st and 2nd Respondents failed to follows the Rules. Let me begin the examination of the alleged infringement by referring to the complaint made by the Husband to the Police. It reads as follows: මීෙමුව හපාලිස් ස්ථානහේ සී .අයි.බී. ( ii) හොරතුරු සටෙන් හපාහෙන් උපුටා ෙන්නා ලද ි ටපෙකි. දි නය: 2017.11.30.ිටු ව: 03 හේදය: 368 හව්පලාව: 11.30 බිරි ඳ නි වසින් යාමක් අංක 131/ඩී , ෙල්කටුව පාර , දලුපෙ , මී ෙමුව ලිි නහේ පදිංචි හේශාන් යන අය බිරි ඳ නි වසින් යාමක් සම්බන්ධව පැමිණිල්ලක් කිරී මට අවශය බව දන්වා සිටි යා. හපා.සැ. 58537 දයානන්ද වන මා ඔහුහේ ප්‍ර කාශය පෙෙ සටෙන් කරමි. සම්පූර්ණ නම නලවුල්ලගේ දිලී ප ගේශාන් ප්‍ර නාන්ු වයස අවු. 23 යි ආගම ග ෝමානු කග ෝලික වි වාහකයි පදිිංචිය අිංක 131 ගල්කටුව පා දලුපමී ගමුව 0772998070 මම ඉෙෙ ලිි නහේ පදිංචිව සිටි නවා. මා වි වාෙ වී සිටින් හන් අංක 513/51/ ඒ මහිමහොඩල්ල වත්ෙමී ෙමුව ලිි නහේ පදිංචි ප්‍රින් සස් අංජලිකා ප්‍ර නාන්ු යන අයයි. අප හදහදනා වි වාෙ හවලා දැනට අවු . 04 ක් හවනවා . අප හදහදනාට දරුවන් නෑ. අහේ පවුල් ජීවි ෙයට බිරි ඳහේ අම්මා වන මාජි යන අය අෙ දානවා. හමහස් අෙ දමලා අහේ පවුල් ජීවි ෙයට හනාහයකුත් ප්‍ර ශ්න දමනවා. හම් මාජි අම්මා නි ෙරම අහේ හෙදරට ු රකථනහයන් කො කරනවා. හමහස් සිටි න වි ට Page 11 of 20 2017.10.28. වන දි න මහේ බිරි ඳයි අෙහර් ප්‍ර ශ්නයක් ඇතිවුණ නි සා හමම අම්මා පැමිණ මහේ බිරි ඳ එක් කරහෙන ගි යා. දැනට බිරි ඳ අම්මා ළඟ ඉන්නවා. මම හපාලිසිහයන් ඉල්ලා සිටින් හන් හමම අයහෙන්වා වි භාෙ කර මට මහේ බිරි ඳ හෙන්වා හදන හලසටයි. මට කී මට ඇත්හත් එපමණයි. කි යවා හත්රුම් කර ුන් නා. නි වැරදි බවට ිළි හෙන ( XXXXX) (දිලී ප හේශාන් ප්‍ර නාන්ුහේ අත්සන) අත්සන් කරා. ඉෙෙ හේශාන් යන අයහේ ප්‍ර කාශය හපා.සැ. 58537 දයානන්ද වන මා අවංක හලසත් නි වැරදි හලසත් සෙය හලසත් වාර්ථා ෙෙ කළ බවට හමයින් ප්‍ර කාශ කරසිටිමි ( XXXXX) ( හපා.සැ. 58537 දයානන්ද නි ළධාරියාහේ අත්සන ) ඉෙෙ ි ටපෙ හපා.හකා. 88645 ගීත් වන මා විසින් නි වැරදිව ි ටපත් කල බවට හමයින් ප්‍ර කාශ කරමි. This complaint is referable to Section 109(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979 (Code). Further steps that the Police may take on this complaint is conditional upon the satisfaction of the requirements in Section 109(5) Code. There must be reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence or to apprehend a breach of the peace. The complaint made by the Husband does not disclose a cognizable offence. Neither does it establish any breach of peace. Clearly the matter was a marital dispute of a civil nature. In these circumstances, the decision taken by the 1st Respondent to proceed further is questionable and lends credence to the fear entertained by the Client and Grand Mother that the Police was biased towards the Husband and his family. Moreover, the Grand Mother had previously made a statement consequent to the complaint made by the Husband to the Negombo Police. The 1st and 2nd Respondents have failed to tender a copy of this statement along with their objections although they tendered the complaint made by the Husband. This failure must be considered as an attempt to withhold evidence which is adverse to the case of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. The Grand Mother has averred in her affidavit that despite the statement she made, the 1st Respondent insisted that she brings the Client to the Police Station. These circumstances, lends further credence to the allegation made that the 1st Respondent was acting partially towards the Husband. Page 12 of 20 The 1st Respondent admits that he asked the Petitioner to go out of his room leaving the Client and her husband in his room. This was not a course of action open to the 1st Respondent. I have no hesitation in accepting that the Petitioner informed the 1st Respondent of the interim protection order given in M. C. Negombo Case No. L 55617. This has been corroborated by both the Client and her Grand Mother. The 1st Respondent does not make any allegation that the Client and the Grand Mother entertained any animosity towards him. Upon the 1st Respondent being notified of this order, he should have not proceeded with the inquiry. Instead, the 1st Respondent proceeded to deprive the Petitioner of representing his Client by sending him out of the room and keeping the Husband and the Client together despite the interim protection order. Thereby, the 1st Respondent infringed the fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed by Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution. The situation was aggravated by the conduct of the 2nd Respondent who also admits having sent the Petitioner out of his room while keeping the Client and the Husband in his room. I have no hesitation in rejecting his claim that this was consensual. It is inconceivable that the Client did so on her free will having just two days prior obtained an interim protection order from the Magistrates Court preventing the Husband from threatening her, preventing him from the entering her temporary residence and preventing the Husband from using any compulsion by telephone. The Petitioner has categorically stated that he informed the 2nd Respondent of the interim protection order. This is corroborated by both the Client and the Grand Mother. The 2nd Respondent does not make any allegation that the Client and the Grand Mother entertained any animosity towards him. In these circumstances, the 2nd Respondent could not have sent out the Petitioner and kept the Husband and the Client in the room. Moreover, the Client was clearly apprehensive of the impartiality of the Police and had requested the Petitioner to accompany her to the Police and represent her at the inquiry. Page 13 of 20 I conclude that the 2nd Respondent kept the Client in her room without the Petitioner against her free will. Thereby, the 2nd Respondent infringed the fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed by Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution. I am convinced that the 2nd Respondent did utter the words \"එහෙනම් අද හම්කිව හෙනිහිල්ලා රෑට කිරි එකක් බී ලා දරුවක් ෙදපන් \'\' and \"හම් වහේ කුරුළු කූඩු කැඩිලා යන්හන් හදමව්පිහයෝ නි සා , ඒ වහේම නීති ඥහයෝ නි සා . හම් නීති ඥයන්ට දිට් ඨධම්ම හව්පදනීය කර්මය පළ හදන්නට ඕනෑ\". This is corroborated by both the Client and her Grand Mother against whom the 2nd Respondent makes no allegation of animosity towards him. These statements by the 2nd Respondent shows an abject lack of appreciation of the emotions of a victim of domestic violence. Moreover, it is a totally misguided perception of the role of an Attorney-at-Law. As much as the learned DSG did his best for the 1st and 2nd Respondents in this case, the Petitioner, and all Attorneys-at-Law for that matter, are bound by the professional ethics set out in the Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules 1988 and must inter alia exercise his skill with due diligence to the best of his ability and care in the best interests of his client. Rule 3(2) prohibits any Police Officer using physical force on the person of such Attorney- at-Law or resort to the use of abusive language or any other form of intimidatory conduct. The 2nd Respondent breached this rule by the utterance of the above statement aimed at the Petitioner and Attorneys-at-Law as a whole. In summary, I declare that the 1st and 2nd Respondents infringed the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner by Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution. I order the 1st Respondent to pay the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 30,000/= as compensation from his personal funds. I further direct the 2nd Respondent to pay the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 60,000/= as compensation from his personal funds. Additionally, both the 1st and 2nd Respondents will pay the Petitioner Rs. 10,000/= each as costs of this application. Page 14 of 20 Application allowed. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT P. Padman Surasena, C.J. The Petitioner is an Attorney-at-Law. The 1st Respondent is the Officer in Charge of Miscellaneous Complaints Unit of Police Station Negombo. The 2nd Respondent is the Headquarters Inspector (HQI) of Police Station of Negombo. Petitioner has stated that on 07-12-2017 around 9.00 a.m. he accompanied his client, who claimed to be a victim of domestic violence, named H.P.D. Princes Angelina Sanduni along with her grandmother Mary Margret Fernando and one other person to the Negombo Police Station. According to the Petitioner, the 1st Respondent (the Officer in Charge of the Miscellaneous Complaints Unit) had a discussion with the Petitioner who looked after the interests of his client (H.P.D. Princes Angelina Sanduni) and her (Sanduni’s) grandmother in an inquiry conducted by the 1st Respondent into a complaint made against the grandmother by the husband of the client (Sanduni). Although many things have been stated by the Petitioner in the Petition, the allegation the Petitioner has made against the 1st and 2nd Respondents is limited to the allegation that the 1st and 2nd Respondents have violated the fundamental right of the Petitioner to engage in his lawful profession as guaranteed by Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution. I observe that it is in respect of the said alleged violation that this Court by its Order dated 04-06-2018 has granted Leave to Proceed. I observe that neither the client of the Petitioner nor her grandmother are Petitioners in this fundamental rights Petition. However, despite the fact that they have not come before this Court, the Petitioner through his Petition appears to have attempted to vindicate the rights of his client and the client’s grandmother in the instant Fundamental Rights Application. In my view, this is not possible. Page 15 of 20 This Court has been consistent in holding that only a person whose Fundamental Rights have been violated, can file a Petition in terms of Article 126(2) of the Constitution. The only exception to this rule is set out in Article 126(2) in the following terms: “Where any person alleges that any such fundamental right or language right relating to such person has been infringed or is about to be infringed by executive or administrative action, he may himself or by an Attorney-at-Law on his behalf, within one month thereof, in accordance with such rules of court as may be in force, apply to the Supreme Court by way of petition in writing addressed to such Court praying for relief or redress in respect of such infringement. Such application may be proceeded with only with leave to proceed first had and obtained from the Supreme Court, which leave may be granted or refused, as the case may be, by not less than two judges.” This Court in the case of Mohamed Ibrahim Mohamed Ishran Ahamed and Others vs. Senior Superintendent of Police and Others,1 has observed as follows: “31. In Somawathie v. Weerasinghe [(1990) 2 Sri LR 121], it was the wife of the aggrieved party who petitioned the Supreme Court (quite similar to these three Applications). Under such circumstances, Justice Dr. A.R.B. Amerasinghe, observed that, \"Article 126(2) confers a recognized position only upon the person whose fundamental rights are alleged to have been violated and upon an attorney-at-law acting on behalf of such a person. No other person has a right to apply to the Supreme Court for relief or redress in respect of the alleged infringement of fundamental rights\". This view aligns with the plain and literal interpretation I have earlier adopted to interpret Article 126(2) of the Constitution and Rule 44(2) of the Supreme Court Rules. Moving further, Justice Dr. Amerasinghe in this Judgment has also considered the aspect of adopting an expansive interpretative approach to 1 SC FR Application Nos: 46, 47 & 48/2020 decided on 09-02-2026 Page 16 of 20 Article 126(2) beyond its literal sense and has stated that “…in the Article before us, the words are in themselves precise and unambiguous and there is no absurdity, repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the Constitution, the words themselves do best declare that intention. No more can be necessary than to expound those words in their plain, natural, ordinary, grammatical and literal sense\". I find myself in agreement with this view, as a written law (and certainly an Article in the Constitution) should be given an expansive interpretation only in instances where the law stands ambiguous, absurd, repugnant, or inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. In my view, the written law contained in Article 126(2) when read in its plain literal sense, provides a clear and coherent rule on permitted standing, to make a Fundamental Rights Application to the Supreme Court. That is the availability of standing only to the aggrieved person himself or an Attorney-at- Law acting on his behalf.” The instant case is not a case the Petitioner has filed acting on behalf of his clients. Nor has the Court granted Leave to Proceed for alleged violation of Fundamental Rights of his clients. Therefore I have to disregard all the allegations the Petitioner has made in his Petition against the Respondent with regard to the alleged violations of Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner’s client and the client’s grandmother. Therefore it is not necessary for me to evaluate the veracity of those allegations as this Court will not be able to adjudicate on the rights of those two other persons referred to in by the Petitioner in this case. On the other hand, as mentioned above, this Court has granted Leave to Proceed only to the Petitioner in respect of the alleged infringement of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution. I.e., the Petitioner’s entitlement to engage in his profession. Page 17 of 20 The Police Rules 2012 published in the Gazette bearing No. 1758/36 dated 18-05-2012 has laid down certain guidelines to be followed by police officers with regard to appearances of Attorneys-at-Law at police stations. Clause 3(1) and 3(2) of the aforesaid Rules is as follows: \"3. (1) Every Attorney-at-Law, who enters the precincts of a police station established under the Police Ordinance (Chapter 53) situated in any part of Sri Lanka, in his capacity of an Attorney-at-Law for the purpose of representing and watching the interests of a person who is the client of such Attorney-at-Law, shall be treated cordially and courteously and given a fair and patient hearing by the police officers attached to such Police Station, whatever their rank. (2) Every police officer attached to a Police Station shall not at any time during which he is dealing with an Attorney-at-Law present in such police station for the purpose of representing and watching the interests of a person who is his client, use physical force on the person of such Attorney-at-Law or resort to the use of abusive language or any other form of intimidatory conduct.” Although the Petitioner has placed reliance on an Order made by a Magistrate under Section 5(1)(a) of the Domestic Violence Act No. 34 of 2005 it is to be noted that the learned Magistrate had made this Order on the husband of the Petitioner’s client. The said Order is reproduced below: “2017.12.05 දි න ඉහත නම් සඳහන් පී ඩාවට පත් තැනැත්ිය වවනුවවන් ඉදිරිපත් කල කරුණු සලකා බැලීවෙත් පසුව ඉහත නම් සදහන් වගඋත්තරකරු විසින් වෙෙ නඩුවට අදාල පී ඩාවට පත් තැනැත්ියට දැනට පදිිංචි ස්ථානවේ දී කරනු ලබන සි යලු තාඩන පී ඩන බලපෑම් සහ තර්ජන වලින් සහ වනාෙනා හැසිරිම් වලින් වලකින වලසට 2005 අිංක 34 දරණ ගෘහස්ථ ප්‍ර චන්ඩ ක්‍රි යා වැළැක්වීෙ පනවත් 5 (1) (අ) වගන්ිය ප්‍ර කාර අතුරු ආරක්වෂණ ආඥාවක්ව නිකුත් කරමි .” Page 18 of 20 While the Petitioner has not maintained a specific allegation against the 1st Respondent, the only thing the Petitioner has told against the 1st Respondent is the fact that the 1st Respondent was continuously trying to compel his client to return to the home of the husband against her will. The Petitioner states that the 1st Respondent had done this after he informed him about the Order issued by the learned Magistrate of Negombo against his client’s husband and that that client was seeking a divorce. However, in my view, the mere fact that the 1st Respondent did not accede to the request of the Attorney-at-Law cannot be an infringement of the fundamental rights of the Attorney-at-Law guaranteed under Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution to engage in a lawful practice of his profession. The only allegation the Petitioner has made against the 2nd Respondent is the fact of 2nd Respondent making the following statement: “වම් වවේ කුරුළු කූඩු කැඩිලා යන්වන් වදෙව්පිවයෝ නි සා , ඒ වවේෙ නීි ඥවයෝ නි සා . වම් නීි ඥයන්ට දිට් ඨධම්ෙ වව්පදනීය කර්ෙය පළ වදන්නට ඕනෑ” The Petitioner has taken up the position that the 2nd Respondent by making the above statement has prevented him from representing his client at the inquiry in the police station. The fact of mere making of the above statement is the reason as to why the Petitioner states that he could not discharge his professional duties towards his client at the said inquiry.2 In as much as the Petitioner is assertive of his fundamental rights, one needs to understand that the 2nd Respondent would also be free to express his views according to his thinking. Even if I accept that the 2nd Respondent has made that statement (the 2nd Respondent has denied in his Affidavit) having regard to the nature of the above statement, I am unable to conclude that the Petitioner’s fundamental rights to engage in 2 Paragraphs 44 and 45 of the Petition dated 05-01-2017. Page 19 of 20 his profession inside the police station under Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution has been violated by the 2nd Respondent by the mere making of such statement. It is to be noted that the Petitioner does not make any other allegation against the 2nd Respondent. Indeed, according to the Petitioner himself, the 2nd Respondent had permitted his presence. The fact of a police officer requiring to interrogate a person in the absence of an Attorney-at-Law in my view cannot be taken as an infringement of the fundamental right of such Attorney-at-Law to engage in his lawful practice. I must state here that when serious crimes are committed, investigating police officers are required to interrogate the persons who are suspected or having committed or are involved in such serious crimes. Such police officers are also required to expeditiously conduct inquiries and investigations and conclude such investigations within the shortest possible time. They are called upon to collect evidence and apprehend the offenders. Investigations such as those cannot be conducted unless such police officer is given a free hand to interrogate such persons. The Rules published in the Gazette No. 1758/36 dated 18-05-2012 does not give an Attorney-at-Law, an entitlement to be present right through when the investigators interrogate persons. In my view, one should always weigh the consequences of such serious crimes, their investigations, against the rights of persons under arrest, and strike a smooth balance between them. For the above reasons, I am unable to accept the position of the Petitioner that the Respondents have infringed his Fundamental Rights to engage in his profession in this instance. I dismiss the Petition without cost. CHIEF JUSTICE Page 20 of 20 Kumudini Wickremasinghe, J. I have had the benefit of reading the draft judgment of Hon. Justice Janak De Silva and the opinion expressed by His Lordship, the Chief Justice. I am in agreement with the opinion expressed by Justice De Silva. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT 📄 Download
30 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/81/2022
Chandralatha Weerasinghe Katumana, Nuwara Eliya. 1ST SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT -Vs- 2. R.G. Sarath Kumara, Katumana, Nuwara Eliya. Presently at, 74/174, Katumana, Nuwara Eliya. 3. R.G. Sriyani Padmalatha, Katumana, Nuwara Eliya. Presently at, 2/8/A, Kalawala, Madugalla. 4. R.G. Kalyani Kusumalatha, Katumana, Nuwara Eliya. Presently at, 240, Ihalawaththa, Moragolla, Hunupola, Nikadalupotha. 2ND TO 4TH SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANTS – RESPONDENTS - RESPONDENTS Rathnahalugedra Engalthina, Katumana, Nuwara Eliya. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT Chandralatha Weerasinghe Katumana, Nuwara Eliya. 1ST SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT -Vs- 2. R.G. Sarath Kumara, Katumana, Nuwara Eliya. Presently at, 74/174, Katumana, Nuwara Eliya. 3. R.G. Sriyani Padmalatha, Katumana, Nuwara Eliya. Presently at, 2/8/A, Kalawala, Madugalla. 4. R.G. Kalyani Kusumalatha, Katumana, Nuwara Eliya. Presently at, 240, Ihalawaththa, Moragolla, Hunupola, Nikadalupotha. 2ND TO 4TH SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANTS – RESPONDENTS - RESPONDENTS Rathnahalugedra Engalthina, Katumana, Nuwara Eliya. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
30 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/190/2015
Rosen Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd., 9/4, Station Road, Maharagama. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT -Vs- 1. M.W. Jagath Somathunga, 42/3, Galhena Road, Gangodavilla, Nugegoda. 2. Agampodi Diluma Shiromi de Soyza, 42/3, Galhena Road, Gangodavilla, Nugegoda. Carrying out a Business in the name of Asiri Gardening and Cleaning Services. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENTS Rosen Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd., 9/4, Station Road, Maharagama. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT -Vs- 1. M.W. Jagath Somathunga, 42/3, Galhena Road, Gangodavilla, Nugegoda. 2. Agampodi Diluma Shiromi de Soyza, 42/3, Galhena Road, Gangodavilla, Nugegoda. Carrying out a Business in the name of Asiri Gardening and Cleaning Services. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
30 Mar 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/22/2015
Torana Music Distributors Pvt. Ltd., 112 / 7, Kandewatta Terrace, Poorvarama Road, Colombo 5. DEFENDANAT – APPELLANT -Vs- Lucian Bulathsinhala, 92 / 1, Udahamulla, Nugegoda. Torana Music Distributors Pvt. Ltd., 112 / 7, Kandewatta Terrace, Poorvarama Road, Colombo 5. DEFENDANAT – APPELLANT -Vs- Lucian Bulathsinhala, 92 / 1, Udahamulla, Nugegoda.
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
30 Mar 2026 SC/FR/326/2017
J. K. G. Anupama Senaratne, 295, Puwakpitiya, Henegama Western Province. PETITIONER -Vs- 1. Mr. MC. A, Thilakarathne, Secretary. 2. Mr. K. Sarath Gunathilaka, Hon. Chairman. 3. Mr. A. W. C. Ariyadasa, Member. 4. Mr. Sunil Fernando, Member. 5. Mr. S. K. Liyanage, Member. 6. Mr. K. Paramalingham, Member. 7. Mr. J. Paranamana, Member. The 1st to 7th Respondents of the Provincial Public Service Commission Western Province, 109, 2nd Floor, Main Street, Battaramulla. 8. Mr. Ranjith Somawansa, Hon. Minister. 9. Mr. J. A. D. L. Hemachandra, Co-ordinating Secretary for the Minister. 10. Mr. S. G. Wijayabandu, Secretary. The 8th to 10th Respondents of the Ministry of Education, Cultural and Arts, Sports and Youth Affairs and Information Technology Western Province. 11. Mr. Sunil Hettirarachchi, Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isuru Paya, Battaramulla. 12. Mr. K. C. Logeswaran, Hon. Governor of the Western Province, Secretariat of the Western Province, 109, 5th Floor, Rotunda Tower, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 13. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. DEFENDANTS 1A . Mr. Thilak Senerath, Secretary, 2A. Mr. U. R. de Silva, PC, Chairman and others. J. K. G. Anupama Senaratne, 295, Puwakpitiya, Henegama Western Province. PETITIONER -Vs- 1. Mr. MC. A, Thilakarathne, Secretary. 2. Mr. K. Sarath Gunathilaka, Hon. Chairman. 3. Mr. A. W. C. Ariyadasa, Member. 4. Mr. Sunil Fernando, Member. 5. Mr. S. K. Liyanage, Member. 6. Mr. K. Paramalingham, Member. 7. Mr. J. Paranamana, Member. The 1st to 7th Respondents of the Provincial Public Service Commission Western Province, 109, 2nd Floor, Main Street, Battaramulla. 8. Mr. Ranjith Somawansa, Hon. Minister. 9. Mr. J. A. D. L. Hemachandra, Co-ordinating Secretary for the Minister. 10. Mr. S. G. Wijayabandu, Secretary. The 8th to 10th Respondents of the Ministry of Education, Cultural and Arts, Sports and Youth Affairs and Information Technology Western Province. 11. Mr. Sunil Hettirarachchi, Secretary, Ministry of Education, Isuru Paya, Battaramulla. 12. Mr. K. C. Logeswaran, Hon. Governor of the Western Province, Secretariat of the Western Province, 109, 5th Floor, Rotunda Tower, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 13. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. DEFENDANTS 1A . Mr. Thilak Senerath, Secretary, 2A. Mr. U. R. de Silva, PC, Chairman and others.
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
30 Mar 2026 SC/FR/525/2011
1. Dr. K. Mahendrarajah, 46, 5/3, Hampden Lane, Colombo 06. 2. K. Balendra, 46, 5/3, Hampden Lane, Colombo 06. PETITIONERS -Vs- 1. The Chairman, Condominium Management Authority, Sir Chittampalam Gardener Mawatha, Colombo 01. 2. The Commissioner, Colombo Municipal Council, Colombo. 3. The Director, Enforcement Urban Development Authority, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 4. The Director General, Consumer Affairs Authority, CWE Secretariat Building, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. 5. The Attorney General, The Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 6. The Director, Seagull Property Developers (Pvt) Ltd, No.3, Bagatalle Road, Colombo 03. And 2 Others RESPONDENTS 1. Dr. K. Mahendrarajah, 46, 5/3, Hampden Lane, Colombo 06. 2. K. Balendra, 46, 5/3, Hampden Lane, Colombo 06. PETITIONERS -Vs- 1. The Chairman, Condominium Management Authority, Sir Chittampalam Gardener Mawatha, Colombo 01. 2. The Commissioner, Colombo Municipal Council, Colombo. 3. The Director, Enforcement Urban Development Authority, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 4. The Director General, Consumer Affairs Authority, CWE Secretariat Building, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02. 5. The Attorney General, The Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 6. The Director, Seagull Property Developers (Pvt) Ltd, No.3, Bagatalle Road, Colombo 03. And 2 Others RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
30 Mar 2026 SC/FR/286/2023
B.W.W.K. Bogamuwa No. 622/31, Stage II, New Town, Anuradhapura. Petitioner v. 1. J.H. Weeraratne Director Education (Teacher Transfers) 2. S.N. Malaviarachchi Additional Secretary (School Affairs) 3. M.N. Ranasinghe Secretary 3A. Wasantha Perera Secretary 3B. K.M.G.S. Nalaka Kaluwewe Secretary All of: Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 4. E.M.N.W. Ekanayake Director of Provincial Education 5. Ms. Nilani Administrative Officer 6. M.M. Hettiarachchi Zonal Director of Education – Anuradhapura All of: Provincial Department of Education North Central Province, Anuradhapura 7. R.A.C.A.K. Ratnayake Principal Swarnapali Balika Maha Vidyalaya, Anuradhapura 8. Manjula Thilakaratne Sectional Head – Grade 9 Swarnapali Balika Maha Vidyalaya, Anuradhapura 9. J.A. Ranjith Chairman 10. A.K.W.W.M.N.K. Weerasekara Member 11. W.M.N.J. Pushpakumara Member 12. A.W.R. Wimalaweera Secretary All of: Education Service Committee of the Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Rd, Battaramulla. 13. Sanath J. Ediriweera Chairman 14. S.M. Mohamed Member 15. N.H.M Chitrananda Member 15A. Dr. (Eng) Sanath Panawennage Member 16. M.B.R. Pushpakumara Member 17. Prof. N. Selvakumaran Member 18. Dr. A.D.N. de Zoysa Member 19. R. Nadarajapillai Member 20. C. Pallegama Member 21. G.S.A. de Silva, PC Member 22. W.H.M.M.C.K. Dayaratne Secretary All of: Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Rd, Battaramulla. 23. Honourable Attorney-General Attorney-General’s Department Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 12. 24. H.M.A. Kamalasiri SOS Village Anuradhapura D.S. Senanayake Mawatha, Dahaiyagama, Anuradhapura 25. Sujeewa Dissanayake SOS Village Anuradhapura D.S. Senanayake Mawatha, Dahaiyagama, Anuradhapura Respondents B.W.W.K. Bogamuwa No. 622/31, Stage II, New Town, Anuradhapura. Petitioner v. 1. J.H. Weeraratne Director Education (Teacher Transfers) 2. S.N. Malaviarachchi Additional Secretary (School Affairs) 3. M.N. Ranasinghe Secretary 3A. Wasantha Perera Secretary 3B. K.M.G.S. Nalaka Kaluwewe Secretary All of: Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. 4. E.M.N.W. Ekanayake Director of Provincial Education 5. Ms. Nilani Administrative Officer 6. M.M. Hettiarachchi Zonal Director of Education – Anuradhapura All of: Provincial Department of Education North Central Province, Anuradhapura 7. R.A.C.A.K. Ratnayake Principal Swarnapali Balika Maha Vidyalaya, Anuradhapura 8. Manjula Thilakaratne Sectional Head – Grade 9 Swarnapali Balika Maha Vidyalaya, Anuradhapura 9. J.A. Ranjith Chairman 10. A.K.W.W.M.N.K. Weerasekara Member 11. W.M.N.J. Pushpakumara Member 12. A.W.R. Wimalaweera Secretary All of: Education Service Committee of the Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Rd, Battaramulla. 13. Sanath J. Ediriweera Chairman 14. S.M. Mohamed Member 15. N.H.M Chitrananda Member 15A. Dr. (Eng) Sanath Panawennage Member 16. M.B.R. Pushpakumara Member 17. Prof. N. Selvakumaran Member 18. Dr. A.D.N. de Zoysa Member 19. R. Nadarajapillai Member 20. C. Pallegama Member 21. G.S.A. de Silva, PC Member 22. W.H.M.M.C.K. Dayaratne Secretary All of: Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Rd, Battaramulla. 23. Honourable Attorney-General Attorney-General’s Department Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 12. 24. H.M.A. Kamalasiri SOS Village Anuradhapura D.S. Senanayake Mawatha, Dahaiyagama, Anuradhapura 25. Sujeewa Dissanayake SOS Village Anuradhapura D.S. Senanayake Mawatha, Dahaiyagama, Anuradhapura Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Yasantha Kodagoda, PC 📄 Download
30 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/165/2015
Ahamadu Lebbe Hajari Umma, (Now Deceased) 2nd DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – [PETITIONER] 2A. Mohamed Sharibuge Adampulle, Kekunagolla Post, Dampitiya. 2A DEFENDANT - APPELLANT–PETITIONER – [APPELLANT] vs Asana Lebbege Segu Mohammadu (Deceased) PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT) Segu Mohammadu Neina Mohideen, Kekunagolla Post, Dampitiya. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT 2. Mohamed Sharibuge Adampulle, Kekunagolla Post, Dampitiya. 1st DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT –RESPONDENT- [RESPONDENT] Ahamadu Lebbe Hajari Umma, (Now Deceased) 2nd DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – [PETITIONER] 2A. Mohamed Sharibuge Adampulle, Kekunagolla Post, Dampitiya. 2A DEFENDANT - APPELLANT–PETITIONER – [APPELLANT] vs Asana Lebbege Segu Mohammadu (Deceased) PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT) Segu Mohammadu Neina Mohideen, Kekunagolla Post, Dampitiya. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT 2. Mohamed Sharibuge Adampulle, Kekunagolla Post, Dampitiya. 1st DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT –RESPONDENT- [RESPONDENT]
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath K. B. Wijeratne 📄 Download
30 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/88/2014
Zenora Jayah No.28A/1, Gnanatilaka Road, Mount Lavinia Plaintiff- Appellant- Appellant Eragoda Kankanamge Leelawathie No. 07 Barrack Street, Hambantota Defendant- RespondentRespondent Presently Between Ramliya Dilhara Jayah No.28A/1 Gnanatilaka Road Mount Lavinia Substituted- PlaintiffAppellant-Appellant Eragoda Kankanamge Leelawathie No. 07 Barrack Street, Hambantota Defendant- RespondentRespondent- Respondent Zenora Jayah No.28A/1, Gnanatilaka Road, Mount Lavinia Plaintiff- Appellant- Appellant Eragoda Kankanamge Leelawathie No. 07 Barrack Street, Hambantota Defendant- RespondentRespondent Presently Between Ramliya Dilhara Jayah No.28A/1 Gnanatilaka Road Mount Lavinia Substituted- PlaintiffAppellant-Appellant Eragoda Kankanamge Leelawathie No. 07 Barrack Street, Hambantota Defendant- RespondentRespondent- Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe 📄 Download
27 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/128/2017
Favourite Hanwella (Pvt) (Ltd) No. 385, Land Mark Building, 6th Floor, Galle Road, Colombo 03. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. M. Wasantha Priyamal Fernando No. 28, Munidasa Kumarathunga Mawatha, Gorakapola, Panadura. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT Favourite Hanwella (Pvt) (Ltd) No. 385, Land Mark Building, 6th Floor, Galle Road, Colombo 03. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs. M. Wasantha Priyamal Fernando No. 28, Munidasa Kumarathunga Mawatha, Gorakapola, Panadura. APPLICANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna 📄 Download
27 Mar 2026 SC/FR/65/2023 AND SC/FR/82/2023
Transparency International Sri Lanka No.366, Nawala Road Nawala, Rajagiriya. 2. Ashala Nadishani Perera No.31, Shalawa Road, Mirihana, Nugegoda. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Hon. Ranil Wickramasinghe Minister of Finance, Economic Stabilisation and National Policies, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 1. 1A. Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 1. 2. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena, Prime Minister Minister of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government Ministry of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 1. 2A. Minister of Public Administration, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Ministry of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 1. 3. Hon. Nimal Siripala de Silva, Minister of Ports, Shipping and Aviation Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Aviation No.19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 1. 3A. Minister of Transport, Highways, Ports, and Civil Aviation, Ministry of Transport, Highways, Ports, and Civil Aviation, 7th Floor, Sethsiripaya, Stage II, Battaramulla. 4. Hon. Pavithra Devi Wanniarachchi, Minister of Wildlife & Forest Resources Conservation Ministry of Wildlife & Forest Resources Conservation, No.1090, Sri Jayawardhanapura Road, Rajagiriya. 5. Hon. Douglas Devananda, Minister of Fisheries Ministry of Fisheries, New Secretariat, Maligawatte Road, Colombo 10. 5A. Minister of Fisheries, Aquatic and Ocean Resources, Ministry of Fisheries, Aquatic and Ocean Resources, New Secretariat, Maligawatte Road, Colombo 10. 6. Hon. Susil Premajayantha, Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, \\\"Isurupaya\\\", Battaramulla. 6A. Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, \\\"Isurupaya\\\", Battaramulla. 7. Hon. (Dr.) Bandula Gunawardena, Minister of Transport and Highways, Ministry of Transport and Highways, 9th Floor, \\\"Maganeguma Mahamedura\\\", Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Koswatte, Battaramulla. 8. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture, No. 80/5, \\\"Govijana Mandiraya\\\", Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla. 8A. Minister of Agriculture, Livestock, Land and Irrigation, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Land and Irrigation, No. 80/5, \\\"Govijana Mandiraya\\\", Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla. 9. Hon. (Dr.) Wijedasa Rajapakse, Minister of Justice, Prison Affairs and Constitutional Reforms, Ministry of Justice, No. 19, Sri Sangaraja Mawatha, Colombo 10. 9A. Minister of Justice, Prison Affairs and Constitutional Reforms, Ministry of Justice, No. 19, Sri Sangaraja Mawatha, Colombo 10. 9B. Minister of Justice and National Integration, Ministry of Justice, No. 19, Sri Sangaraja Mawatha, Colombo 10. 10. Hon. Harin Fernando, Minister of Tourism and Lands, Ministry of Tourism and Lands, No. 2, Asset Arcade Building, 51/2/1, York Street, Colombo 1. AND OTHERS Transparency International Sri Lanka No.366, Nawala Road Nawala, Rajagiriya. 2. Ashala Nadishani Perera No.31, Shalawa Road, Mirihana, Nugegoda. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Hon. Ranil Wickramasinghe Minister of Finance, Economic Stabilisation and National Policies, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 1. 1A. Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Colombo 1. 2. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena, Prime Minister Minister of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government Ministry of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 1. 2A. Minister of Public Administration, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Ministry of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 1. 3. Hon. Nimal Siripala de Silva, Minister of Ports, Shipping and Aviation Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Aviation No.19, Chaithya Road, Colombo 1. 3A. Minister of Transport, Highways, Ports, and Civil Aviation, Ministry of Transport, Highways, Ports, and Civil Aviation, 7th Floor, Sethsiripaya, Stage II, Battaramulla. 4. Hon. Pavithra Devi Wanniarachchi, Minister of Wildlife & Forest Resources Conservation Ministry of Wildlife & Forest Resources Conservation, No.1090, Sri Jayawardhanapura Road, Rajagiriya. 5. Hon. Douglas Devananda, Minister of Fisheries Ministry of Fisheries, New Secretariat, Maligawatte Road, Colombo 10. 5A. Minister of Fisheries, Aquatic and Ocean Resources, Ministry of Fisheries, Aquatic and Ocean Resources, New Secretariat, Maligawatte Road, Colombo 10. 6. Hon. Susil Premajayantha, Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, \\\"Isurupaya\\\", Battaramulla. 6A. Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, \\\"Isurupaya\\\", Battaramulla. 7. Hon. (Dr.) Bandula Gunawardena, Minister of Transport and Highways, Ministry of Transport and Highways, 9th Floor, \\\"Maganeguma Mahamedura\\\", Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Koswatte, Battaramulla. 8. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture, No. 80/5, \\\"Govijana Mandiraya\\\", Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla. 8A. Minister of Agriculture, Livestock, Land and Irrigation, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Land and Irrigation, No. 80/5, \\\"Govijana Mandiraya\\\", Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla. 9. Hon. (Dr.) Wijedasa Rajapakse, Minister of Justice, Prison Affairs and Constitutional Reforms, Ministry of Justice, No. 19, Sri Sangaraja Mawatha, Colombo 10. 9A. Minister of Justice, Prison Affairs and Constitutional Reforms, Ministry of Justice, No. 19, Sri Sangaraja Mawatha, Colombo 10. 9B. Minister of Justice and National Integration, Ministry of Justice, No. 19, Sri Sangaraja Mawatha, Colombo 10. 10. Hon. Harin Fernando, Minister of Tourism and Lands, Ministry of Tourism and Lands, No. 2, Asset Arcade Building, 51/2/1, York Street, Colombo 1. AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon. Chief Justice P. Padman Surasena 📄 Download
27 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/122/2025
Seylan Bank PLC No 90. Seylan Towers, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 2nd DEFENDANT-PETITIONER Vs. 1. Neththasingha Appuhamilage Rohana Neththasingha No 63, Thalgasmote, Veyangoda. 2. Bandula Ashoka Thamarasingha No 160/A, Palm Grove Gardens, Paththalagedara, Veyangoda. 3. Dambadeni Arachchige Karunashantha Dambadeniarachchi No. 476/21, Kamburagalla Watta, Rukgahawila. 4. Hettige Dona Thushiri Lakmini Thirimanna No 205/2E, Dudly Senanayake Mawatha, Nittambuwa. 5. Rajasuriya Jayarathnalage Ranjith Premathilake No 152C, Plam Grove Gardens, Paththalagedara, Veyangoda. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS Gampaha Development Company (PVT) Ltd Sanasa Square, Court Road, Gampaha. 1ST DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT Seylan Bank PLC No 90. Seylan Towers, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 2nd DEFENDANT-PETITIONER Vs. 1. Neththasingha Appuhamilage Rohana Neththasingha No 63, Thalgasmote, Veyangoda. 2. Bandula Ashoka Thamarasingha No 160/A, Palm Grove Gardens, Paththalagedara, Veyangoda. 3. Dambadeni Arachchige Karunashantha Dambadeniarachchi No. 476/21, Kamburagalla Watta, Rukgahawila. 4. Hettige Dona Thushiri Lakmini Thirimanna No 205/2E, Dudly Senanayake Mawatha, Nittambuwa. 5. Rajasuriya Jayarathnalage Ranjith Premathilake No 152C, Plam Grove Gardens, Paththalagedara, Veyangoda. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS Gampaha Development Company (PVT) Ltd Sanasa Square, Court Road, Gampaha. 1ST DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne 📄 Download
27 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/84/2016
D.MWijesekara Wendesiyaya, Kalugahakandura. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. D.M Seelawathi Kammal Watta, Meegahakiula. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT -RESPONDENT D.MWijesekara Wendesiyaya, Kalugahakandura. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. D.M Seelawathi Kammal Watta, Meegahakiula. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT -RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna 📄 Download
27 Mar 2026 SC/FR/411/2019
Budagama Mudalige Thamila Dinushi Perera Attorney-at-Law 391/1/2, 1st Floor, Dam Street, Colombo 12. For and on behalf of Menikpura Hakuru Indika Pushpakumara of No. 541/E, Hipankanda, Welapahalawattre, Nawadagala PETITIONER Vs. 1. Sub Inspector of Police, Balendran Formerly attached to the Police Station, Uragasmanhandiya. 2. Inspector of Police Janaka 3. Superintendent of Police Elpitiya Division, Elpitiya 4. Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Province 5. Deputy Inspector General of Police Galle District 6. SDIG Chandana Wickremaratne Acting Inspector - General of Police Police Headquarters - Colombo 01. 6A. Priyantha Weerasooriya Inspector General of Police Police Heaquarters – Colombo 01. 7. General S H S Kottegoda (Rtd.) Secretary- Ministry of Defence 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 7A. General G D H Kamal Gunaratne (Rtd) Secretary – Ministry of Defence Defence Headquarters Complex, Sri Jayawardenapura, Kotte. 7B. Sampath Thuyacontha Secretary – Ministry of Defence Defence Headquarters Complex, Sri Jayawardenapura, Kotte. 8. Hon. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS Budagama Mudalige Thamila Dinushi Perera Attorney-at-Law 391/1/2, 1st Floor, Dam Street, Colombo 12. For and on behalf of Menikpura Hakuru Indika Pushpakumara of No. 541/E, Hipankanda, Welapahalawattre, Nawadagala PETITIONER Vs. 1. Sub Inspector of Police, Balendran Formerly attached to the Police Station, Uragasmanhandiya. 2. Inspector of Police Janaka 3. Superintendent of Police Elpitiya Division, Elpitiya 4. Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Province 5. Deputy Inspector General of Police Galle District 6. SDIG Chandana Wickremaratne Acting Inspector - General of Police Police Headquarters - Colombo 01. 6A. Priyantha Weerasooriya Inspector General of Police Police Heaquarters – Colombo 01. 7. General S H S Kottegoda (Rtd.) Secretary- Ministry of Defence 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 7A. General G D H Kamal Gunaratne (Rtd) Secretary – Ministry of Defence Defence Headquarters Complex, Sri Jayawardenapura, Kotte. 7B. Sampath Thuyacontha Secretary – Ministry of Defence Defence Headquarters Complex, Sri Jayawardenapura, Kotte. 8. Hon. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna 📄 Download
27 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/127/2017
Mahabadalge Rita Malkanthi, No.169, Sapugahawatta, Wiharakumbura, Kirindiwela. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Ilandari Pedige Kamalawathi, No.168, “Thilaka Wila”, Sapugahawatta, Kirindiwela. 2. Ilandari Pedige Premasiri, No.168/D, Sapugahawatta, Wiharakumbura, Kirindiwela. 3. Warushamana Pedige Weerasingha, Sapugahawatta, Wiharakumbura, Kirindiwela. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents Mahabadalge Rita Malkanthi, No.169, Sapugahawatta, Wiharakumbura, Kirindiwela. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Ilandari Pedige Kamalawathi, No.168, “Thilaka Wila”, Sapugahawatta, Kirindiwela. 2. Ilandari Pedige Premasiri, No.168/D, Sapugahawatta, Wiharakumbura, Kirindiwela. 3. Warushamana Pedige Weerasingha, Sapugahawatta, Wiharakumbura, Kirindiwela. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read with Section 5C of the Act No.54 of 2006 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act as amended . 📄 Download
27 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/40/2012
1. Jayalath Arachchige Premawathi, 2. Mudunkotuwage Preethi Janaki, 3. Mudunkotuwage Jagath Ravindra 4. Mudunkotuwage Sithara Himali, All of No. 522, Weboda North, Weboda. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellants Vs. 1. Mudunkotuwage Don Karunawathi No.498, Weboda West, Weboda. 2. Mudunkotuwage Don Piyatissa No.498/2,Weboda West, Weboda. 3. Mudunkotuwage Don Lal Jayatissa No.492/A, Weboda West, Weboda. 4. Mudunkotuwage Don Seelawathi No.498/B/2,Weboda West, Weboda. 5. Mudunkotuwage Don Siriyawathi No.138/1, Mahena. Mandawala. 6. Mudunkotuwage Don Yasawathi No.372/C, Mandawala Road, Radawana. 7. Mudunkotuwage Don Karunawathi Dangollagoda, Waduwawa, Yatigoluwa, Polgahawela Substituted-Defendant-Respondent- Respondents 1. Jayalath Arachchige Premawathi, 2. Mudunkotuwage Preethi Janaki, 3. Mudunkotuwage Jagath Ravindra 4. Mudunkotuwage Sithara Himali, All of No. 522, Weboda North, Weboda. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellants Vs. 1. Mudunkotuwage Don Karunawathi No.498, Weboda West, Weboda. 2. Mudunkotuwage Don Piyatissa No.498/2,Weboda West, Weboda. 3. Mudunkotuwage Don Lal Jayatissa No.492/A, Weboda West, Weboda. 4. Mudunkotuwage Don Seelawathi No.498/B/2,Weboda West, Weboda. 5. Mudunkotuwage Don Siriyawathi No.138/1, Mahena. Mandawala. 6. Mudunkotuwage Don Yasawathi No.372/C, Mandawala Road, Radawana. 7. Mudunkotuwage Don Karunawathi Dangollagoda, Waduwawa, Yatigoluwa, Polgahawela Substituted-Defendant-Respondent- Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli In the matter of an Appeal against under Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No.54 of 2006. 📄 Download
26 Mar 2026 SC/FR/131/2022
Kadigamuwage Dumindu Kalyan P/108, Torrington Housing Complex, Torrington Avenue, Colombo 05. Petitioner Vs. 1. Director, Cultural Affairs, Department of Cultural Affairs, 8th Floor, Sethsiripaaya, Battaramulla. 2. Hon. Minister of Buddhasasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs, Ministry of Buddhasasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs 135, Srimath Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3. Secretary to the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Ministry of Buddhasasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs, 135, Srimath Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha, Colombo 07. 4. M.L. Sunil Fernando, Retired Additional Secretary of Sri Lanka Administrative Service, No. 937/27, Pothuwarawa road, Malabe. 5. Gardihewa Anusha Gokula, No. 24/25 B, Dankanattha Road, Mabola, Wattala. 6. Secretary to the Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwattha Road, Battaramulla. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Hulftsdorp street, Colombo 12. Respondents Kadigamuwage Dumindu Kalyan P/108, Torrington Housing Complex, Torrington Avenue, Colombo 05. Petitioner Vs. 1. Director, Cultural Affairs, Department of Cultural Affairs, 8th Floor, Sethsiripaaya, Battaramulla. 2. Hon. Minister of Buddhasasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs, Ministry of Buddhasasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs 135, Srimath Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3. Secretary to the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Ministry of Buddhasasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs, 135, Srimath Anagarika Dharmapala Mawatha, Colombo 07. 4. M.L. Sunil Fernando, Retired Additional Secretary of Sri Lanka Administrative Service, No. 937/27, Pothuwarawa road, Malabe. 5. Gardihewa Anusha Gokula, No. 24/25 B, Dankanattha Road, Mabola, Wattala. 6. Secretary to the Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwattha Road, Battaramulla. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Hulftsdorp street, Colombo 12. Respondents
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
26 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/81/2011
Michael Laurents Cyrille Caderamanpulle, No. 15/5, Victoria Place, Off Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. (Deceased) Joseph Romesh Sherhan Caderamanpulle, No. 33, Booran Road, Canfield, Victoria 3162, Australia. Substituted Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Ceylon Paper Sacks Limited No. 47, Maligawa Road, Etul Kotte. Petitioner-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent Michael Laurents Cyrille Caderamanpulle, No. 15/5, Victoria Place, Off Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. (Deceased) Joseph Romesh Sherhan Caderamanpulle, No. 33, Booran Road, Canfield, Victoria 3162, Australia. Substituted Respondent-Petitioner-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Ceylon Paper Sacks Limited No. 47, Maligawa Road, Etul Kotte. Petitioner-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
26 Mar 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/10/2017
Allianz Insurance Lanka Ltd, No. 675, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha (Baseline Road), Colombo 09. Janashakthi Insurance PLC of No. 46, Muttiah Road, Colombo 02. And presently of No. 55/72, Muttiah Road, Colombo 02. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. A. Masakorala, ‘Dharshani Guest House’, Habarana Road, Polonnaruwa, carrying on business as a sole proprietor under the name and style of ‘Dharshani Constructions’ at No. 42, Pothgul Road, Polonnaruwa. Defendant-Respondent Allianz Insurance Lanka Ltd, No. 675, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha (Baseline Road), Colombo 09. Janashakthi Insurance PLC of No. 46, Muttiah Road, Colombo 02. And presently of No. 55/72, Muttiah Road, Colombo 02. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. A. Masakorala, ‘Dharshani Guest House’, Habarana Road, Polonnaruwa, carrying on business as a sole proprietor under the name and style of ‘Dharshani Constructions’ at No. 42, Pothgul Road, Polonnaruwa. Defendant-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
26 Mar 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/102/2018
M.D. Sivakumara, Carrying on business as a sole proprietor, under the name and style of ‘Omvishkar Exporters’ of No. 4, Angappa Naicken Street, Chennai-600001, India. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. People’s Bank, No. 75, Sri Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Defendant-Respondent M.D. Sivakumara, Carrying on business as a sole proprietor, under the name and style of ‘Omvishkar Exporters’ of No. 4, Angappa Naicken Street, Chennai-600001, India. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. People’s Bank, No. 75, Sri Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. Defendant-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
26 Mar 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/38/2023
Pasan Madanayake No. 31, De Fonseka Road, Colombo 05. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT vs 2. DFCC Bank PLC (formerly known as DFCC Vardhana Bank Limited), No. 73/5, Galle Road, Colombo 03. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT Pasan Madanayake No. 31, De Fonseka Road, Colombo 05. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT vs 2. DFCC Bank PLC (formerly known as DFCC Vardhana Bank Limited), No. 73/5, Galle Road, Colombo 03. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath K. B. Wijeratne 📄 Download
26 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/94/2025
6A.Karunanayake Mudiyanselage Tikiri Banda Karunanayake, Girathalana, Hettipola. 6A DEFENDANT– RESPONDENT–PETITIONER Vs. 1. Chandrasekara Wasala Mudiyanselage Somawathie Chandrasekara, Girathalana, Hettipola. 2. Chandrasekara Mudiyanselage Shanthi Manel Choolakanthi Kumarihami, No. 38/2, Negalla Road, Dewalegama. 3. Padma Swarnakanthi Kumarihami, Girathalana, Hettipola. 4. Chandrasekara Mudiyanselage Ranjani Malkanthi Kumarihami, Puttalam Road, Mahakeliya. 7. Chandrasekara Mudiyanselage Amitha Chandrakanthi Kumarihami, No. 226, Kubutiyawa, Nittabuwa. 8. Chandrasekara Mudiyanselage Deepa Nayanakanthi Kumarihami, Weragala, Doralanda Watta, Thalawathugoda. 9. Chandrasekara Mudiyanselage Padma Swarnakanthi Kumarihami, Girathalana, Hettipola. 1ST, 2ND, 3RD, 4TH, 7TH, 8TH & 9TH DEFENDANTS– APPELLANTS–RESPONDENTS People’s Bank, Hettipola. 5TH DEFENDANT– RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT 1. Wickrama Arachchige Dona Juliana, Girathalana, Hettipola. 2. Karunanayake Mudiyanselage Buddhika Gayani Karunanayake, Girathalana, Hettipola. 1ST & 2ND PLAINTIFFS– RESPONDENTS–RESPONDENTS 6A.Karunanayake Mudiyanselage Tikiri Banda Karunanayake, Girathalana, Hettipola. 6A DEFENDANT– RESPONDENT–PETITIONER Vs. 1. Chandrasekara Wasala Mudiyanselage Somawathie Chandrasekara, Girathalana, Hettipola. 2. Chandrasekara Mudiyanselage Shanthi Manel Choolakanthi Kumarihami, No. 38/2, Negalla Road, Dewalegama. 3. Padma Swarnakanthi Kumarihami, Girathalana, Hettipola. 4. Chandrasekara Mudiyanselage Ranjani Malkanthi Kumarihami, Puttalam Road, Mahakeliya. 7. Chandrasekara Mudiyanselage Amitha Chandrakanthi Kumarihami, No. 226, Kubutiyawa, Nittabuwa. 8. Chandrasekara Mudiyanselage Deepa Nayanakanthi Kumarihami, Weragala, Doralanda Watta, Thalawathugoda. 9. Chandrasekara Mudiyanselage Padma Swarnakanthi Kumarihami, Girathalana, Hettipola. 1ST, 2ND, 3RD, 4TH, 7TH, 8TH & 9TH DEFENDANTS– APPELLANTS–RESPONDENTS People’s Bank, Hettipola. 5TH DEFENDANT– RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT 1. Wickrama Arachchige Dona Juliana, Girathalana, Hettipola. 2. Karunanayake Mudiyanselage Buddhika Gayani Karunanayake, Girathalana, Hettipola. 1ST & 2ND PLAINTIFFS– RESPONDENTS–RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon.Justice K.M.G.H.Kulatunga 📄 Download
23 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/52/2025
Abdullah Moosajee, No. 41, Pereira Lane, Colombo 06. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Zahidi Alif Managing Director, Greenstone (Private) Limited, No. 754/11, Adamally Place, Colombo 04. Presently at: No. 4/4, Span Tower, No. 27, Windsor Avenue, Dehiwala. 2. Greenstone (Private) Limited, No. 754/11, Adamally Place, Colombo 04. Presently at: No. 4/4, Span Tower, No. 27, Windsor Avenue, Dehiwala. 3. I Capital Partners Limited, No. 40, Temple Lane, Colombo 03. 4. Zaharan Nassath, Chief Executive Officer, I Capital Partners Limited, No. 40, Temple Lane, Colombo 03. Defendants- Respondents- Respondents Abdullah Moosajee, No. 41, Pereira Lane, Colombo 06. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Zahidi Alif Managing Director, Greenstone (Private) Limited, No. 754/11, Adamally Place, Colombo 04. Presently at: No. 4/4, Span Tower, No. 27, Windsor Avenue, Dehiwala. 2. Greenstone (Private) Limited, No. 754/11, Adamally Place, Colombo 04. Presently at: No. 4/4, Span Tower, No. 27, Windsor Avenue, Dehiwala. 3. I Capital Partners Limited, No. 40, Temple Lane, Colombo 03. 4. Zaharan Nassath, Chief Executive Officer, I Capital Partners Limited, No. 40, Temple Lane, Colombo 03. Defendants- Respondents- Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe In the matter of an Appeal against the judgment dated 09th July 2024 of the High Court of Civil Appeals of the Western Province (holden in Mt. Lavinia) in case No. WP/HCCA/MT/32/2023 (LA) under in terms of Article 127 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read with Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No: 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No: 54 of 2006. 📄 Download
23 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/104/2014
Chandrasiri Perera, Harikaduwa, Manikhinna. 2nd-Respondent-Respondent-Appellant Vs. A.P.W. Wijetunga Manikhinna, Harikaduwa. 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 1A. Galle Kalasuriyage Ariyawathi Mallika 1B. Nilanthi Rupika Nanayakkara 1C. Nanayakkara Koralalage Kingsely Emil Nanayakkara 1D. Nirosha Dilhani Nanayakkara All are in 40, Gogaha Town Road, Matale. Substituted Plaintiffs Respondents- Appellants-Respondents Chandrasiri Perera, Harikaduwa, Manikhinna. 2nd-Respondent-Respondent-Appellant Vs. A.P.W. Wijetunga Manikhinna, Harikaduwa. 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 1A. Galle Kalasuriyage Ariyawathi Mallika 1B. Nilanthi Rupika Nanayakkara 1C. Nanayakkara Koralalage Kingsely Emil Nanayakkara 1D. Nirosha Dilhani Nanayakkara All are in 40, Gogaha Town Road, Matale. Substituted Plaintiffs Respondents- Appellants-Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe In the matter of an Appeal under Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No: 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No: 54 of 2006. 📄 Download
23 Mar 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/66/2014
Ceylinco Profit Sharing Investments Corporation Limited, No. 153, Dharmapala Mawatha, Colombo -07. And also of No. 3/1, Melbourne Avenue Colombo – 04. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Al Haj Abdul Azeez Mohamed Razik, Alias Ramzi Hajiar No. 118/1, Outer Circular Road, Ratnapura. Plaintiff-Respondent Ceylinco Profit Sharing Investments Corporation Limited, No. 153, Dharmapala Mawatha, Colombo -07. And also of No. 3/1, Melbourne Avenue Colombo – 04. Defendant-Appellant Vs. Al Haj Abdul Azeez Mohamed Razik, Alias Ramzi Hajiar No. 118/1, Outer Circular Road, Ratnapura. Plaintiff-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 📄 Download
23 Mar 2026 SC/FR/328/2011
Dr. Indrani Swarna Hassanally nee Senaratne, No 35B, Torrington Avenue, Colombo 07, Presently of No 52/3, 5th Lane Nawala, Rajagiriya PETITIONER Vs. 1. Mr. Kapila Premadasa, Inspector of Police, Officer- in- Charge, Cinnamon Garden Police Station, Colombo 07. 2. Mr. Hettiarachchi, Inspector of Police, Officer-in-Charge of Minor Offences Branch, Cinnamon Garden Police Station, Colombo 07. 3. Mr. Ajantha, Police Constable(18982), Cinnamon Garden Police Station, Colombo 07. 4. Mr. Mendis, Sergeant, Cinnamon Garden Police Station, Colombo 07. 5. Mr. Roshan De Silva, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Office of Assistant Superintendent of Police, Gampaha. 6. Mr. Anura Senanayake, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 7. Mr. Panditheratne, Area Manager, Ceylon Electricity Board, High Level Road, Kirulapone, Colombo 06. 8. Mr. Sivapatham Vakeesan, No. 35, Torrington Avenue, Colombo 07. 9. Mrs. Nirmala Vakeesan nee Velliampalam, No. 35, Torrington Avenue, Colombo 07. 10. Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 11. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulfsdrop, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS Dr. Indrani Swarna Hassanally nee Senaratne, No 35B, Torrington Avenue, Colombo 07, Presently of No 52/3, 5th Lane Nawala, Rajagiriya PETITIONER Vs. 1. Mr. Kapila Premadasa, Inspector of Police, Officer- in- Charge, Cinnamon Garden Police Station, Colombo 07. 2. Mr. Hettiarachchi, Inspector of Police, Officer-in-Charge of Minor Offences Branch, Cinnamon Garden Police Station, Colombo 07. 3. Mr. Ajantha, Police Constable(18982), Cinnamon Garden Police Station, Colombo 07. 4. Mr. Mendis, Sergeant, Cinnamon Garden Police Station, Colombo 07. 5. Mr. Roshan De Silva, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Office of Assistant Superintendent of Police, Gampaha. 6. Mr. Anura Senanayake, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 7. Mr. Panditheratne, Area Manager, Ceylon Electricity Board, High Level Road, Kirulapone, Colombo 06. 8. Mr. Sivapatham Vakeesan, No. 35, Torrington Avenue, Colombo 07. 9. Mrs. Nirmala Vakeesan nee Velliampalam, No. 35, Torrington Avenue, Colombo 07. 10. Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 11. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulfsdrop, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe In the matter of an application under Articles 17 read with 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 📄 Download
23 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/8/2018
K. Nihal Alias Patty, 16, Samagi Mawatha, Via Siriwardena Road, Ragama. (Appearing by his Power of Attorney holder) Heekenda Mudiyanselage Indumathi, R2b, Samagi Mawatha, Ragama. 4TH DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT -Vs- Bastian Koralalage Allin Luigi Quintus Rodrigo, Sarasavi Mawatha, “Camp View”, Ragama. (Deceased) PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT Pahan Samadhi, Sarasavi Mawatha, “Camp View”, Ragama. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT 1. Kuruppu Arachchige Ranjini Hemalatha, 16, Samagi Mawatha, Ragama. 2. Kuruppu Arachchige Sarath, 16, Samagi Mawatha, Ragama. (Deceased) 2a. Ratnayaka Mudiyandelage Ariyawathi, 16, Samagi Mawatha, Ragama. 2b. Kuruppu Arachchige Dilki Madushani, 16, Samagi Mawatha, Ragama. 3. Ratnayaka Mudiyandelage Ariyawathi, 16, Samagi Mawatha, Ragama. DEFENDANTS – APPELLANTS – RESPONDENTS K. Nihal Alias Patty, 16, Samagi Mawatha, Via Siriwardena Road, Ragama. (Appearing by his Power of Attorney holder) Heekenda Mudiyanselage Indumathi, R2b, Samagi Mawatha, Ragama. 4TH DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT -Vs- Bastian Koralalage Allin Luigi Quintus Rodrigo, Sarasavi Mawatha, “Camp View”, Ragama. (Deceased) PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT Pahan Samadhi, Sarasavi Mawatha, “Camp View”, Ragama. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT 1. Kuruppu Arachchige Ranjini Hemalatha, 16, Samagi Mawatha, Ragama. 2. Kuruppu Arachchige Sarath, 16, Samagi Mawatha, Ragama. (Deceased) 2a. Ratnayaka Mudiyandelage Ariyawathi, 16, Samagi Mawatha, Ragama. 2b. Kuruppu Arachchige Dilki Madushani, 16, Samagi Mawatha, Ragama. 3. Ratnayaka Mudiyandelage Ariyawathi, 16, Samagi Mawatha, Ragama. DEFENDANTS – APPELLANTS – RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
23 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/60/2014
Sunethra Gajanayake “Anoma” Pullaiyar Junction Anuradhapura DEFENDANT- RESPONDENT- APPELLANT Vs. Neville Wijesooriya, No 07, UC Quarters Thamennakulama, Anuradhapura SUBSTITUTED-PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT-RESPONDENT Sunethra Gajanayake “Anoma” Pullaiyar Junction Anuradhapura DEFENDANT- RESPONDENT- APPELLANT Vs. Neville Wijesooriya, No 07, UC Quarters Thamennakulama, Anuradhapura SUBSTITUTED-PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT-RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe 📄 Download
23 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/39/2022
1. Sinnarajah Sivakumar, 2. Harijah (Wife of Sivakumar), 9749, SW 111th Terrace Miami, Florida, 3313776, United States of America. Through their Power of Attorney Nadaraja Thamilalagan, “Malarvasa” Urumpirai North, Urumpirai. PLAINTIFFS – RESPONDENTS – APPELLANTS -Vs- Ponnuthurai Gurudev, 311, Navalar Road, Jaffna. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT 1. Sinnarajah Sivakumar, 2. Harijah (Wife of Sivakumar), 9749, SW 111th Terrace Miami, Florida, 3313776, United States of America. Through their Power of Attorney Nadaraja Thamilalagan, “Malarvasa” Urumpirai North, Urumpirai. PLAINTIFFS – RESPONDENTS – APPELLANTS -Vs- Ponnuthurai Gurudev, 311, Navalar Road, Jaffna. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
20 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/78/2024
Kumburegama Walawwe Ratnayake Mudiyansela Ralahamilage Anoma Subashinie Ratnayake, ‘Ratnagiri’, Arambegama, Kumburugama. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Vs. Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Devapirya Bandara Dehideniya, 301/35, Sir Cuda Ratwa􀆩e Mawatha, Didamwala, Kandy. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT Kumburegama Walawwe Ratnayake Mudiyansela Ralahamilage Anoma Subashinie Ratnayake, ‘Ratnagiri’, Arambegama, Kumburugama. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Vs. Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Devapirya Bandara Dehideniya, 301/35, Sir Cuda Ratwa􀆩e Mawatha, Didamwala, Kandy. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere 📄 Download
20 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/29/2024
1. Rajapaksha Pedige Sajeewa Dhammika Rajapakshe, ‘Rajapaksha Nivasa’, Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. Presently in Japan and appearing by Rajapaksha Pedige Priyantha Luxman Rajapaksha, his power of attorney holder 2. Rankoth Pedige Sunil Premachandra, ‘Sunil Sevana’, Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellants Vs. 3. Ranasinghe Pedige Jayathileke Ranasinghe. 10. R. P. Wimalarathne. 11. R. P. Upananda Ranasinghe. All of Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. 3rd, 10th and 11th Defendant-Appellant-Respondents 1. Rajapaksha Pedige Rajasiri Seneviratne, Paranawatte, Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. 2. Rajapaksha Pedige Rajarathne, Paranawatte, Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. 4. Marasinghe Pedige Sunil, Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. 5. Rajapaksha Pedige Nandawathie, Paranawatte, Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. 6. Wijayalatha Pedige Bandula Gunasinghe, Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. 7. Wijayalatha Pedige Samaraweera Kularathne, Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. 8. Hapan Pedige Susilawathie, Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. 9. Wijayalata Pedige Kusumalatha, Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th Defendant-Respondents. 1. Rajapaksha Pedige Sajeewa Dhammika Rajapakshe, ‘Rajapaksha Nivasa’, Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. Presently in Japan and appearing by Rajapaksha Pedige Priyantha Luxman Rajapaksha, his power of attorney holder 2. Rankoth Pedige Sunil Premachandra, ‘Sunil Sevana’, Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellants Vs. 3. Ranasinghe Pedige Jayathileke Ranasinghe. 10. R. P. Wimalarathne. 11. R. P. Upananda Ranasinghe. All of Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. 3rd, 10th and 11th Defendant-Appellant-Respondents 1. Rajapaksha Pedige Rajasiri Seneviratne, Paranawatte, Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. 2. Rajapaksha Pedige Rajarathne, Paranawatte, Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. 4. Marasinghe Pedige Sunil, Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. 5. Rajapaksha Pedige Nandawathie, Paranawatte, Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. 6. Wijayalatha Pedige Bandula Gunasinghe, Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. 7. Wijayalatha Pedige Samaraweera Kularathne, Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. 8. Hapan Pedige Susilawathie, Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. 9. Wijayalata Pedige Kusumalatha, Kobbewela, Galigamuwa Town. 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th Defendant-Respondents.
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
20 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/67/2016
Siriwardhana Mudiyanselage Tikiri Banda Siriwardhana, No. 18, Maha Mega Uyana, Wewarauma, Kurunegala. (Deceased) Jayamaha Hitihamillage Seelawathi, No. 311/9, St. Michelle View, Gangarama Vihara Mawatha, Dampe, Madapatha, Piliyandala. Substituted Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Modara Acharige Imesha Modara Priyadarshani, No. 402/D, Sri Subodha Mawatha, Kelaniya. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent Siriwardhana Mudiyanselage Tikiri Banda Siriwardhana, No. 18, Maha Mega Uyana, Wewarauma, Kurunegala. (Deceased) Jayamaha Hitihamillage Seelawathi, No. 311/9, St. Michelle View, Gangarama Vihara Mawatha, Dampe, Madapatha, Piliyandala. Substituted Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Modara Acharige Imesha Modara Priyadarshani, No. 402/D, Sri Subodha Mawatha, Kelaniya. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
20 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/138/2022
Sri Lanka Catering Limited, Airport, Katunayake. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT- APPELLANT vs Kurunage Milred Sandya Hasanthi Perera, Jathika Sewaka Sangamaya, No. 416, Kotte Road, Pitakotte. SUBSTITUTED APPLICANT- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT Sri Lanka Catering Limited, Airport, Katunayake. RESPONDENT-APPELLANT- APPELLANT vs Kurunage Milred Sandya Hasanthi Perera, Jathika Sewaka Sangamaya, No. 416, Kotte Road, Pitakotte. SUBSTITUTED APPLICANT- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath K. B. Wijeratne 📄 Download
20 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/29/2021
1. Hussain Saad Hashim \"Alhambra\" No. 96, R.A. De Mel Mawatha, Colombo 03. 2. Mohamed Macky Hashim No. 47, Reservoir Road, Colombo 10. 3. Mohamed Faizer Hashim No. 410/6, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Plaintiffs-Respondents -Appellants Vs. 1. Fathima Nilam No. 23 (Part) also known as No. 23A, M.J.M Laffir Mawatha, Colombo 12. 2. Inaya Thulba No. 23 (Part) also known as No. 23A, M.J.M Laffir Mawatha, Colombo 12. 1st and 2nd Defendants -Respondents-Respondents Mohamed Thulba Mohamed Iqbal No. 23, Messenger Street, Colombo 12. 3rd Defendant-Appellant -Respondent 1. Hussain Saad Hashim \"Alhambra\" No. 96, R.A. De Mel Mawatha, Colombo 03. 2. Mohamed Macky Hashim No. 47, Reservoir Road, Colombo 10. 3. Mohamed Faizer Hashim No. 410/6, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Plaintiffs-Respondents -Appellants Vs. 1. Fathima Nilam No. 23 (Part) also known as No. 23A, M.J.M Laffir Mawatha, Colombo 12. 2. Inaya Thulba No. 23 (Part) also known as No. 23A, M.J.M Laffir Mawatha, Colombo 12. 1st and 2nd Defendants -Respondents-Respondents Mohamed Thulba Mohamed Iqbal No. 23, Messenger Street, Colombo 12. 3rd Defendant-Appellant -Respondent
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
20 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/47/2023
LOLC Finance PLC. No. 100/1, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Rajagiriya, successor to LOLC Micro Credit Limited pursuant to the amalgamation of LOLC Micro Credit Limited with LOLC Finance PLC in terms of Part VIII of the Companies Act No. 07 of 2007. RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Vs. The Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, The Department of Inland Revenue, Sri Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. APPELLANT – RESPONDENT LOLC Finance PLC. No. 100/1, Sri Jayawardenapura Mawatha, Rajagiriya, successor to LOLC Micro Credit Limited pursuant to the amalgamation of LOLC Micro Credit Limited with LOLC Finance PLC in terms of Part VIII of the Companies Act No. 07 of 2007. RESPONDENT – APPELLANT Vs. The Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, The Department of Inland Revenue, Sri Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. APPELLANT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Janak De Silva In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal in terms of Article 128(2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 📄 Download
20 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/84/2025
1A. Senerath Arachchige Gunasinha, Beddewatta, Dimbulgoda, Medamulana. 1B. Senarath Arachchige Dharmasena, Beddewatta, Dimbulgoda, Medamulana. 1C. Senerath Arachchige Pathmini, Beddewatta, Dimbulgoda, Medamulana. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – PETITIONER – APPELLANTS Vs. Balamanage Amariyas, Medalanda, Dimbulgoda, Medamulana. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT 1A. Senerath Arachchige Gunasinha, Beddewatta, Dimbulgoda, Medamulana. 1B. Senarath Arachchige Dharmasena, Beddewatta, Dimbulgoda, Medamulana. 1C. Senerath Arachchige Pathmini, Beddewatta, Dimbulgoda, Medamulana. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – PETITIONER – APPELLANTS Vs. Balamanage Amariyas, Medalanda, Dimbulgoda, Medamulana. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon.Justice K.M.G.H.Kulatunga In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal under and in terms of the Article 128(1) of the Constitution read with Section 5(c)(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 19 of 1990 as amended by High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act, No. 54 of 2006. 📄 Download
20 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/36/2018
Sithy Fareeda Jeganathan No. 11/2, 47th Lane, Wellawatte. Respondent – Appellant – Appellant v. Mohamed Osman Sufiyan No. 16, 42nd Lane, Wellawatte. Petitioner – Respondent – Respondent Sithy Fareeda Jeganathan No. 11/2, 47th Lane, Wellawatte. Respondent – Appellant – Appellant v. Mohamed Osman Sufiyan No. 16, 42nd Lane, Wellawatte. Petitioner – Respondent – Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Yasantha Kodagoda, PC In the nature of a matter of an Appeal under section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act read together with Articles 127 and 128 of the Constitution. 📄 Download
19 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/49/2023
1. Nalini Perera nee Samarasinghe, Millakandeniya, Maramba, Akuressa. 1A. Waragoda Mudalige Dhammika Lalini Wijesekera nee Perera, 230, Sri Dhammawansha Mawatha, Walpola, Matara 1B. Waragoda Mudalige Nihal Dharmasiri Perera, Millakandeniya, Maramba, Akuressa. 1C. Waragoda Mudalige Kalinga Perera, Thalgahakana􀆩a, Maramba, Akuressa. 1D. Waragoda Mudalige Maheswari Wijesiriwardhena nee Perera, 9, 6th Cross Lane, Wergampi􀆟ya, Matara. 1E. Waragoda Mudalige Prasad Perera, Millakandeniya, Maramba, Akuressa. 1F. Waragoda Mudalige Sujeewa Perera, Millakandeniya, Maramba, Akuressa. 2. Amarawathie Wijeywantha nee Samarasinghe, Digalawa􀆩e, Maramba, Akuressa. 2A. Amara Wijeywantha, Digalawa􀆩e, Maramba, Akuressa. 2B. Thamara Wijeywantha, Digalawa􀆩e, Maramba, Akuressa. 2C. Samara Kumari Wijeywantha, Digalawa􀆩e, Maramba, Akuressa. 3. Sumanawathie Abeywickrema nee Samarasinghe, Kandalagewa􀆩a, Henagama, Akuressa. 4. Ranjith Mahasen Samarasinghe, Digalawa􀆩e, Maramba, Akuressa. 5. Sahan Dhaja Samarasinghe, Colombawa􀆩e, Maramba, Akuressa. 6. Nilanthi Samarasinghe, Maramba, Akuressa. PLAINTIFFS – RESPONDENTS – APPELLANTS Vs Amara Ponnamperuma nee Jayasinghe, No. 126, Richmond Hill Road, Galle. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT 1. Nalini Perera nee Samarasinghe, Millakandeniya, Maramba, Akuressa. 1A. Waragoda Mudalige Dhammika Lalini Wijesekera nee Perera, 230, Sri Dhammawansha Mawatha, Walpola, Matara 1B. Waragoda Mudalige Nihal Dharmasiri Perera, Millakandeniya, Maramba, Akuressa. 1C. Waragoda Mudalige Kalinga Perera, Thalgahakana􀆩a, Maramba, Akuressa. 1D. Waragoda Mudalige Maheswari Wijesiriwardhena nee Perera, 9, 6th Cross Lane, Wergampi􀆟ya, Matara. 1E. Waragoda Mudalige Prasad Perera, Millakandeniya, Maramba, Akuressa. 1F. Waragoda Mudalige Sujeewa Perera, Millakandeniya, Maramba, Akuressa. 2. Amarawathie Wijeywantha nee Samarasinghe, Digalawa􀆩e, Maramba, Akuressa. 2A. Amara Wijeywantha, Digalawa􀆩e, Maramba, Akuressa. 2B. Thamara Wijeywantha, Digalawa􀆩e, Maramba, Akuressa. 2C. Samara Kumari Wijeywantha, Digalawa􀆩e, Maramba, Akuressa. 3. Sumanawathie Abeywickrema nee Samarasinghe, Kandalagewa􀆩a, Henagama, Akuressa. 4. Ranjith Mahasen Samarasinghe, Digalawa􀆩e, Maramba, Akuressa. 5. Sahan Dhaja Samarasinghe, Colombawa􀆩e, Maramba, Akuressa. 6. Nilanthi Samarasinghe, Maramba, Akuressa. PLAINTIFFS – RESPONDENTS – APPELLANTS Vs Amara Ponnamperuma nee Jayasinghe, No. 126, Richmond Hill Road, Galle. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere In the ma􀆩er of an Appeal under Sec􀆟on 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990, as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006. 📄 Download
19 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/76/2012
(1) Gajaweera Arachchige Seelawathie (1A) Weerawardhena Nanda Silva, Puttalam Road, Nikaweratiya. (1B) Weerawardhena Prasanna Indika De Silva, No. 112, Puttalam Road, Nikaweratiya. (2) Weerawardhena Harriet Silva (2A) Weerawardhena Prasanna Indika De Silva, No. 112, Puttalam Road, Nikaweratiya. (3) Weerawardhena Nanda Silva (3A) Weerawardhena Prasanna Indika De Silva, No. 112, Puttalam Road, Nikaweratiya. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFFS – RESPONDENTS – APPELLANTS - Vs - Ankunna Gamage Harins alias Gorin, 78, Puttalam Road, Nikaweratiya. Ankunna Gamage Saumya Dilakshi, 78, Puttalam Road, Nikaweratiya. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT (1) Gajaweera Arachchige Seelawathie (1A) Weerawardhena Nanda Silva, Puttalam Road, Nikaweratiya. (1B) Weerawardhena Prasanna Indika De Silva, No. 112, Puttalam Road, Nikaweratiya. (2) Weerawardhena Harriet Silva (2A) Weerawardhena Prasanna Indika De Silva, No. 112, Puttalam Road, Nikaweratiya. (3) Weerawardhena Nanda Silva (3A) Weerawardhena Prasanna Indika De Silva, No. 112, Puttalam Road, Nikaweratiya. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFFS – RESPONDENTS – APPELLANTS - Vs - Ankunna Gamage Harins alias Gorin, 78, Puttalam Road, Nikaweratiya. Ankunna Gamage Saumya Dilakshi, 78, Puttalam Road, Nikaweratiya. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere In the matter of an appeal under and in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read with Section 5C(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 19 of 1990, as amended 📄 Download
19 Mar 2026 SC/FR/283/2022
Manjula Balasooriya Attorney-at-Law, On behalf of Mudalige Wasantha Kumara “Ulpatha Niwasa”, Dabana, Mahiyanganaya PETITIONER Vs. 1. C.D. Wickramaratne 1A. Priyantha Weerasooriya Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 2. SSP Kavinda Piyasekara 2A. SSP Shani Abeysekara Director - Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01 3. SSP Prasanna Alwis 3A. SSP Kamal Perera Director - Terrorist Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 4. CI Kaluwitharana 4A. H.I. Kaluwitharana Officer in Charge, Peliyagoda Police Station. 5. General (Retired) Kamal Guneratne 5A. Air Vice Marshal Sampath Thuyacontha Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Defence Headquarters complex, Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte. 6. Hon. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 7. T.M.W.D. Thennakoon Deputy Inspector General - Western Province, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 8. Chief Inspector W.G.A.K. Gamage Officer-in-Charge- DCDB, Peliyagoda Police Station, Peliyagoda. RESPONDENTS Manjula Balasooriya Attorney-at-Law, On behalf of Mudalige Wasantha Kumara “Ulpatha Niwasa”, Dabana, Mahiyanganaya PETITIONER Vs. 1. C.D. Wickramaratne 1A. Priyantha Weerasooriya Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 2. SSP Kavinda Piyasekara 2A. SSP Shani Abeysekara Director - Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01 3. SSP Prasanna Alwis 3A. SSP Kamal Perera Director - Terrorist Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 4. CI Kaluwitharana 4A. H.I. Kaluwitharana Officer in Charge, Peliyagoda Police Station. 5. General (Retired) Kamal Guneratne 5A. Air Vice Marshal Sampath Thuyacontha Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Defence Headquarters complex, Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte. 6. Hon. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 7. T.M.W.D. Thennakoon Deputy Inspector General - Western Province, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 8. Chief Inspector W.G.A.K. Gamage Officer-in-Charge- DCDB, Peliyagoda Police Station, Peliyagoda. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 📄 Download
19 Mar 2026 SC/FR/327/2015
1. W. Sunil Abeysiri, 2. M.M. Chandrika Jayakanthi, 3. I.M.T. Ihalagama, 4. T.P.G. Sudharmika Alwis Wijeratne, 5. Sujatha Karunaratne, 6. A. Gamage Priyanthini Yahampath, 7. Nishanthi Kariyapperuma, 8. J. Chandralal Dissanayake, 1st to 8th Petitioners of Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 9. Sri Lanka Nidahas Sevaka Sangamaya, No. 493/1, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. 10. P.P.S. Pathmasiri, The Secretary, Sri Lanka Nidahas Sevaka Sangamaya, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 11. Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation Engineers\' Association, P.O. Box 574, Torrington Square, Colombo 7. 12. Mudith Siriwardena, The Secretary, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation Engineers\' Association, P.O. Box 574, Torrington Square, Colombo 7. 13. Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation Technical Officers\' Union, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 14. A.H.J.D. Aluthwatta, Assistant Secretary, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation Technical Officers\' Union, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 15. Radio Broadcasters Union, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 16. Sujeewa Priyashantha, President, Radio Broadcasters Union, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. Petitioner Vs. 1. Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 2. Nanda Muruththettuwegama, Former Chairman, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 2A. Malaka Thalwatta, Former Chairman, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 2B. Rohana Dewa Perera, Former Chairman, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 2C.Jagath Wickramasinghe, Former Chairman, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 2D.Hudson Samarasinghe, Chairman, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 3. Deepika Priyadarshini Peiris, Former Board Member, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. AND OTHERS 1. W. Sunil Abeysiri, 2. M.M. Chandrika Jayakanthi, 3. I.M.T. Ihalagama, 4. T.P.G. Sudharmika Alwis Wijeratne, 5. Sujatha Karunaratne, 6. A. Gamage Priyanthini Yahampath, 7. Nishanthi Kariyapperuma, 8. J. Chandralal Dissanayake, 1st to 8th Petitioners of Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 9. Sri Lanka Nidahas Sevaka Sangamaya, No. 493/1, T.B. Jayah Mawatha, Colombo 10. 10. P.P.S. Pathmasiri, The Secretary, Sri Lanka Nidahas Sevaka Sangamaya, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 11. Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation Engineers\' Association, P.O. Box 574, Torrington Square, Colombo 7. 12. Mudith Siriwardena, The Secretary, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation Engineers\' Association, P.O. Box 574, Torrington Square, Colombo 7. 13. Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation Technical Officers\' Union, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 14. A.H.J.D. Aluthwatta, Assistant Secretary, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation Technical Officers\' Union, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 15. Radio Broadcasters Union, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 16. Sujeewa Priyashantha, President, Radio Broadcasters Union, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. Petitioner Vs. 1. Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 2. Nanda Muruththettuwegama, Former Chairman, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 2A. Malaka Thalwatta, Former Chairman, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 2B. Rohana Dewa Perera, Former Chairman, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 2C.Jagath Wickramasinghe, Former Chairman, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 2D.Hudson Samarasinghe, Chairman, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. 3. Deepika Priyadarshini Peiris, Former Board Member, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, Colombo 7. AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon. Justice Janak De Silva In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 17 and Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 📄 Download
19 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/34/2022
Chintha Kumari Egodawela, 16, Mahadowa Division, Madolsima. PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENT – APPELLANT -VsKapilan Ananda Rajapakshe, Karamatiya, Meegahaqla. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT Chintha Kumari Egodawela, 16, Mahadowa Division, Madolsima. PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENT – APPELLANT -VsKapilan Ananda Rajapakshe, Karamatiya, Meegahaqla. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
19 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/41/2017
Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Ltd, 21, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 2. APPELLANT – APPELLANT -VsCommissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam S. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Ltd, 21, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 2. APPELLANT – APPELLANT -VsCommissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam S. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 2. RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
19 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/48/2014
Demuni Cuthbert Kingsley Silva, No.23, 17th Lane, (Off College Street), Kotahena, Colombo 13. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT (Deceased) Nalini Krishnajina Silva nee Ruwanpura, 23, 17th Lane, (Off College Street), Kotahena, Colombo 13. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT -Vs Shanthalingam Shanthakumar, 25/1, 17th Lane, (Off College Street), Kotahena, Colombo 13. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT Demuni Cuthbert Kingsley Silva, No.23, 17th Lane, (Off College Street), Kotahena, Colombo 13. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT (Deceased) Nalini Krishnajina Silva nee Ruwanpura, 23, 17th Lane, (Off College Street), Kotahena, Colombo 13. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT -Vs Shanthalingam Shanthakumar, 25/1, 17th Lane, (Off College Street), Kotahena, Colombo 13. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
19 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/149/2014
1. Warnakulasuriya Mahamala Arachchige Harold Kingsley, Kabalewa, Deegalle. 2. Warnakulasuriya Mary Kurera, Kabalewa, Deegalle. 3. Subasinghe Aarachchige Don Padmini Srikanthi, Kabalewa, Deegalle. 4. Subasinghe Aarachchige Don Newton Stanley, Kabalewa, Deegalle 5. Subasinghe Aarachchige Don Priyadharshana Kumara, Kabalewa, Deegalle. 3RD TO 7TH DEFENDANTSAPPELLANTS-PETITIONERS -VsWarnakulasuriya Nicholas Peter Kurera, Kabalewa, Deegalle. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTRESPONDENT 1. Anthony Raymond Leopold Peiris, His Worship the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church of Kurunegala, Bishop’s House, Kurunegala. 2. Adikari Mudiyanselage Saman Sanjeewa Bandara, Kabalewa, Deegalle. 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTSRESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS 1. Warnakulasuriya Mahamala Arachchige Harold Kingsley, Kabalewa, Deegalle. 2. Warnakulasuriya Mary Kurera, Kabalewa, Deegalle. 3. Subasinghe Aarachchige Don Padmini Srikanthi, Kabalewa, Deegalle. 4. Subasinghe Aarachchige Don Newton Stanley, Kabalewa, Deegalle 5. Subasinghe Aarachchige Don Priyadharshana Kumara, Kabalewa, Deegalle. 3RD TO 7TH DEFENDANTSAPPELLANTS-PETITIONERS -VsWarnakulasuriya Nicholas Peter Kurera, Kabalewa, Deegalle. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTRESPONDENT 1. Anthony Raymond Leopold Peiris, His Worship the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church of Kurunegala, Bishop’s House, Kurunegala. 2. Adikari Mudiyanselage Saman Sanjeewa Bandara, Kabalewa, Deegalle. 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTSRESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
19 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/169/2013
Kumbukage Dona Somawathie, Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT Pathirage Aruna Suranjith Perera, Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction. SUBSTITUTED - PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – PETITIONER -Vs34. Masakoralalage Karunadasa, Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction. 36. Hapuarachchige Dona Chandrakanthi, \"Deepani\", Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction. 34TH AND 36TH DEFENDANTS – APPELLANTS - RESPONDENTS 1. Ukawattage Engonana, Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction 1a. Kumbukage Leelawathie, Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction. 1b. Kumbukkage Chithrawathie, Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction. 2. Weerappulige Alia Fernando, Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction. 3. Kumbukage Somalin, Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction. 4. Kumbukage Don Alwis Senevirathne, Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction. 4a. Kumbukage Leelawathie, Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction. and Others. Kumbukage Dona Somawathie, Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT Pathirage Aruna Suranjith Perera, Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction. SUBSTITUTED - PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – PETITIONER -Vs34. Masakoralalage Karunadasa, Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction. 36. Hapuarachchige Dona Chandrakanthi, \"Deepani\", Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction. 34TH AND 36TH DEFENDANTS – APPELLANTS - RESPONDENTS 1. Ukawattage Engonana, Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction 1a. Kumbukage Leelawathie, Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction. 1b. Kumbukkage Chithrawathie, Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction. 2. Weerappulige Alia Fernando, Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction. 3. Kumbukage Somalin, Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction. 4. Kumbukage Don Alwis Senevirathne, Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction. 4a. Kumbukage Leelawathie, Godigamuwa, Gonapola Junction. and Others.
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
19 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/242/2016
Denis Crystal Mary Peterson, 369, Mahara, Kadawatha. PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENT – APPELLANT -Vs- Sara Weerasinghe Alias Jayanthi Thirimawathana, 20, Keels Housing Scheme, Jalthara, Ranala. DEFENDANT - APPELLANT - RESPONDENT Denis Crystal Mary Peterson, 369, Mahara, Kadawatha. PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENT – APPELLANT -Vs- Sara Weerasinghe Alias Jayanthi Thirimawathana, 20, Keels Housing Scheme, Jalthara, Ranala. DEFENDANT - APPELLANT - RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
19 Mar 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/9/2010
1. Asia Security (Private) Limited, 21 - 01, West Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 1. 1ST DEFENDANT –APPELLANT 2. Commercial Bank of Ceylon Limited, 21, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. 2ND DEFENDANT –APPELLANT -VsMrs. N.S. Cader (nee Ratnagoal), 25/7, Kalinga Mawatha, Colombo 5 PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT 1. Asia Security (Private) Limited, 21 - 01, West Tower, World Trade Centre, Echelon Square, Colombo 1. 1ST DEFENDANT –APPELLANT 2. Commercial Bank of Ceylon Limited, 21, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. 2ND DEFENDANT –APPELLANT -VsMrs. N.S. Cader (nee Ratnagoal), 25/7, Kalinga Mawatha, Colombo 5 PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
19 Mar 2026 SC/FR/360/2022
1. Sumith Prasanna Niroshan Fernando, No. 6/56, Pallansena North, Kochchikade. 2. Wewaldeniya Namal Roy Fernando, No. 200, Fathima Road, Kochchikade. 3. Nanayakkara Warnakula Patabandige Teniran Sangeeth Perera, No. 18/2, Duwana, Negombo. 4. N. Pradeep Chamara Fernando, No. 46, Sirakandawura Road, Kattuwa, Negombo. 5. Warnakulasooriya Anthony Roshan Condrad Fernando, No.61/40, Luvis Place, Negombo 6. Balasuriya Nanda Sulochana Perera, No.32/2, Periyamulla, Negombo. PETITIONERS -Vs1. The Negombo Municipal Council, Negombo. 2. W.M. Dayan Lanza, Mayor, The Negombo Municipal Council, Negombo. 3. E.A.I.K. Edirisinghe, Secretary, The Negombo Municipal Council, Negombo. 4. Alhaj M.A. Izeid Fareez 5. Antony Jayaweera 6. M. Ranjith Sepala Fernando 7. L. Jeewanga Mirando 8. M.A. Jude Ranjith Fernando 9. M.A. Antony Dias 10.D. Jude Perera 11.B.J. Pattric Fernando 12.S. Nandani 13.W. Mary Perera 14.W. Geethani Fernando 15.H.M. Miula Padmini 16.W. Rani Rodrigo 17.B.S. Winodani Perera 18.S. Gaweesha Gayathri 19.W.Shaamal Harshana Fernando 20.M.N. Nazmin Rose 21.M. Emil Rohan Fernando 22.Herman Kurera, All members of the Negombo Municipal Council, Negombo. 23.The Hon. Attorney-General, Attorney-General’s Department, Hulftsdorph Street, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS 1. Sumith Prasanna Niroshan Fernando, No. 6/56, Pallansena North, Kochchikade. 2. Wewaldeniya Namal Roy Fernando, No. 200, Fathima Road, Kochchikade. 3. Nanayakkara Warnakula Patabandige Teniran Sangeeth Perera, No. 18/2, Duwana, Negombo. 4. N. Pradeep Chamara Fernando, No. 46, Sirakandawura Road, Kattuwa, Negombo. 5. Warnakulasooriya Anthony Roshan Condrad Fernando, No.61/40, Luvis Place, Negombo 6. Balasuriya Nanda Sulochana Perera, No.32/2, Periyamulla, Negombo. PETITIONERS -Vs1. The Negombo Municipal Council, Negombo. 2. W.M. Dayan Lanza, Mayor, The Negombo Municipal Council, Negombo. 3. E.A.I.K. Edirisinghe, Secretary, The Negombo Municipal Council, Negombo. 4. Alhaj M.A. Izeid Fareez 5. Antony Jayaweera 6. M. Ranjith Sepala Fernando 7. L. Jeewanga Mirando 8. M.A. Jude Ranjith Fernando 9. M.A. Antony Dias 10.D. Jude Perera 11.B.J. Pattric Fernando 12.S. Nandani 13.W. Mary Perera 14.W. Geethani Fernando 15.H.M. Miula Padmini 16.W. Rani Rodrigo 17.B.S. Winodani Perera 18.S. Gaweesha Gayathri 19.W.Shaamal Harshana Fernando 20.M.N. Nazmin Rose 21.M. Emil Rohan Fernando 22.Herman Kurera, All members of the Negombo Municipal Council, Negombo. 23.The Hon. Attorney-General, Attorney-General’s Department, Hulftsdorph Street, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
19 Mar 2026 SC/FR/397/2019
1. Wanigasundara Appuhamilage Don Dharmasiri Wanigasundara 210/D/1, Medagama, Panirendawa, Madampe. 2. Megesuriya Mudiyanselage Palitha Priyankara Bandara Megesuriya, Aludeniya, Hemmathagama. 3. Miyanamaditte Gedara Ranjith Wijerathna Bandara Kaduwela, No. 60/3, Amarathunga Mawatha, Mirigama. 4. Kodippili Patabendige Priyantha Nilmini Kumari, No.367/3, Pasyala Road, Mirigama. 5. Munasingha Appuhamilage Janaka Ravindra Munasingha, No. 264/3, Gorge E De Silva Mawatha, Kandy. 6. Adikari Mudiyanselage Lalith Parakrama Adikaram, No.41/1, Heeressgala Road, Kandy. 7. Jayapathma Herath Mudiyanselage Amarathilaka Jayapathma, Dangahamulahenewatta, Galapitiyagama, Nikawaratiya. Petitioners Vs. 1. A. N. Guruge Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 2. H.M.C.M. Herath Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 3. A.K.D.D.D. Arandara Director Legal, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Lotus Road, Colombo 01. 4. D.H.S. Pulleperuma Director, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Lotus Road, Colombo 01. 5. D.M. Ratnayake Director, Management Services Department, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Lotus Road, Colombo 01. 6. U.A.S.Harshapriya Sisira Kumara Director, Establishments Ministry of Public Administration, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 7. The Secretary Ministry of Finance & Mass Media, The Secretariat, Lotus Road, Colombo 01. 8. Mr. Dharmasena Dissanayake Chairman, Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 9. Prof. Hussain Ismail Member, Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 10. Ms. S. Karunaratne Member, Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 11. Mr. Prathap Ramanujam Member, Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 12. Mr. V. Jegarasasingam Member, Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. AND OTHERS 1. Wanigasundara Appuhamilage Don Dharmasiri Wanigasundara 210/D/1, Medagama, Panirendawa, Madampe. 2. Megesuriya Mudiyanselage Palitha Priyankara Bandara Megesuriya, Aludeniya, Hemmathagama. 3. Miyanamaditte Gedara Ranjith Wijerathna Bandara Kaduwela, No. 60/3, Amarathunga Mawatha, Mirigama. 4. Kodippili Patabendige Priyantha Nilmini Kumari, No.367/3, Pasyala Road, Mirigama. 5. Munasingha Appuhamilage Janaka Ravindra Munasingha, No. 264/3, Gorge E De Silva Mawatha, Kandy. 6. Adikari Mudiyanselage Lalith Parakrama Adikaram, No.41/1, Heeressgala Road, Kandy. 7. Jayapathma Herath Mudiyanselage Amarathilaka Jayapathma, Dangahamulahenewatta, Galapitiyagama, Nikawaratiya. Petitioners Vs. 1. A. N. Guruge Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 2. H.M.C.M. Herath Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. 3. A.K.D.D.D. Arandara Director Legal, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Lotus Road, Colombo 01. 4. D.H.S. Pulleperuma Director, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Lotus Road, Colombo 01. 5. D.M. Ratnayake Director, Management Services Department, Ministry of Finance, The Secretariat, Lotus Road, Colombo 01. 6. U.A.S.Harshapriya Sisira Kumara Director, Establishments Ministry of Public Administration, Independence Square, Colombo 07. 7. The Secretary Ministry of Finance & Mass Media, The Secretariat, Lotus Road, Colombo 01. 8. Mr. Dharmasena Dissanayake Chairman, Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 9. Prof. Hussain Ismail Member, Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 10. Ms. S. Karunaratne Member, Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 11. Mr. Prathap Ramanujam Member, Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 12. Mr. V. Jegarasasingam Member, Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli In the matter of an application under Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 📄 Download
19 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/6/2023
Suduhakurulage Lalitha, Dambuluoya Watta, Kurunegala Road, Pohoranwewa, Dambulla. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT -Vs- Dehikumuralage Chandradasa, Dambuluoya Watta, Kurunegala Road, Pohoranwewa, Dambulla. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT Suduhakurulage Lalitha, Dambuluoya Watta, Kurunegala Road, Pohoranwewa, Dambulla. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT -Vs- Dehikumuralage Chandradasa, Dambuluoya Watta, Kurunegala Road, Pohoranwewa, Dambulla. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
17 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/7/2010
G. Magilin Nona, No. 21/A, Old Road, Ambatale, Angoda. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Don Ratnasena Godamune, Chandima Saw Mill, Old Road, Ambatale, Angoda. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent (Deceased) 1. Nivunhellage Violet Somawathie Perera. 2. Dinesh Chandimal Godamune. 3. Sharada Rukmal Godamune. 4. Buddhima Eranga Godamune. All of Chandima Saw Mill, Old Road, Ambatale, Angoda. Substituted Defendants-Appellants-Respondents G. Magilin Nona, No. 21/A, Old Road, Ambatale, Angoda. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Don Ratnasena Godamune, Chandima Saw Mill, Old Road, Ambatale, Angoda. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent (Deceased) 1. Nivunhellage Violet Somawathie Perera. 2. Dinesh Chandimal Godamune. 3. Sharada Rukmal Godamune. 4. Buddhima Eranga Godamune. All of Chandima Saw Mill, Old Road, Ambatale, Angoda. Substituted Defendants-Appellants-Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
17 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/7/2021
Ipitakaduwa Gamage Sarath, “Ruwan”, Wewahamanduwa, Mathara. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Hellakala Gamage Siril, Adikaramwatte, Wewahamanduwa, Mathara. 2. Hellakala Gamage Sugathadasa, Adikaramwatte, Wewahamanduwa, Mathara. (Deceased) 2a. Rupaningal Lalani Indrani, Adikaramwatte, Wewahamanduwa, Mathara. 2b. Hellakala Gamage Cyril, Edirisooriyage Hena, Wewahamanduwa, Mathara. Substituted 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondents 3. Talpe Merenchige Lalith De Silva, Walgama, Matara. Defendant-Respondent- Respondents Ipitakaduwa Gamage Sarath, “Ruwan”, Wewahamanduwa, Mathara. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Hellakala Gamage Siril, Adikaramwatte, Wewahamanduwa, Mathara. 2. Hellakala Gamage Sugathadasa, Adikaramwatte, Wewahamanduwa, Mathara. (Deceased) 2a. Rupaningal Lalani Indrani, Adikaramwatte, Wewahamanduwa, Mathara. 2b. Hellakala Gamage Cyril, Edirisooriyage Hena, Wewahamanduwa, Mathara. Substituted 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondents 3. Talpe Merenchige Lalith De Silva, Walgama, Matara. Defendant-Respondent- Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
17 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/175/2025
1. Jayasekara Mudalige Mahinda Mohottimulla, Dankotuwa. 2. Jayasekara Mudalige Leela Piyasili Rajawatta, Sembukuttiya, Madampe. 3. Jayasekara Mudalige Nalani Chandra, IA, Yatiyana, Minuwangoda. 4. Jayasekara Mudalige Lalitha Janaki, Temple Road, Yogiyana, Dankotuwa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioners Vs. 1. Hitihami Appuhamilage Karunanayaka. 2. Hitihamy Appuhamilage Jayalakshmi Karunanayake. 3. Hitihamy Appuhamilage Jayalakshman Karunanayake. 4. Kulanda Arachchige Padma Mallika Karunanayake. All of No.19/A, Minuwangoda Road, Dunagaha South, Dunagaha. Defendant-Appellant- Respondents 1. Jayasekara Mudalige Mahinda Mohottimulla, Dankotuwa. 2. Jayasekara Mudalige Leela Piyasili Rajawatta, Sembukuttiya, Madampe. 3. Jayasekara Mudalige Nalani Chandra, IA, Yatiyana, Minuwangoda. 4. Jayasekara Mudalige Lalitha Janaki, Temple Road, Yogiyana, Dankotuwa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioners Vs. 1. Hitihami Appuhamilage Karunanayaka. 2. Hitihamy Appuhamilage Jayalakshmi Karunanayake. 3. Hitihamy Appuhamilage Jayalakshman Karunanayake. 4. Kulanda Arachchige Padma Mallika Karunanayake. All of No.19/A, Minuwangoda Road, Dunagaha South, Dunagaha. Defendant-Appellant- Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
17 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/194/2018
Bandukula Arachchige Anura Kumara Silva, No. 211/60, Old Kottawa Road, Mirihana. Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Hettiarachchige Don Rejinorld Upali Gunathilake, No. 465/5, Ganahena, Battaramulla. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent 2. Hettiarachchige Don Damien Prience Roach Gunatilleke, No. 465/5, Ganahena, Battaramulla. Respondent-Respondent-Respondent Bandukula Arachchige Anura Kumara Silva, No. 211/60, Old Kottawa Road, Mirihana. Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Hettiarachchige Don Rejinorld Upali Gunathilake, No. 465/5, Ganahena, Battaramulla. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent 2. Hettiarachchige Don Damien Prience Roach Gunatilleke, No. 465/5, Ganahena, Battaramulla. Respondent-Respondent-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
17 Mar 2026 SC/FR/428/2008
Chandra Wickramasinghe, President, Rajagiriya Udyanaya Residents Association, No, 15, Rajagiriya Udyanaya, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya 2. Shelton Wijesinghe, Secretary, Rajagiriya Udyanaya Residents Association, No.4, Rajagiriya Udyanaya, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya (Now Deceased) 3. Jayantha Jayawardena, No, 615/32, Rajagiriya Udyanaya, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya 4. Chula De Silva No, 615/33, Rajagiriya Udyanaya, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya 5. Aurasa Gunasekara, No, 615/14, Rajagiriya Udyanaya, Nawala Road, Rajagirya Petitioners Vs. 1. Sri Lanka Development Corporation, (previously known as Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation), No.5, Kotte Sri Jeyawardenapura Road, Rajagiriya. 2. Karunasena Hettiarachchi. Chairman, Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No.35, Kotte Sri Jeyawardenapura Road, Rajagiriya. 2A. Harshana de Silva, Chairman, Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No.35, Kotte Sri Jeyawardenapura Road, Rajagiriya 2B. M.H.M.Salaman, Chairman, Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No.35, Kotte Sri Jeyawardenapura Road, Rajagirya. 2C. Mr. Asela Iddawela, Chairman, Sri lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No.35, Kotte Sri Jeyawardenpura Road, Rajagiriya. 2D. Mr. Roshan Gunawardena, Chairman, Sri Lanka Reclamation and Development Corporation, No.35, Kotte Sri Jeyawardenapura Road, Rajagiriya 2E. Major General M R W de Zoysa, Chairman, Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No.35, Kotte Sri Jeyawardenapura Road, Rajagiriya. 2F. Commodore Eng. Hiran Balasuriya, Chairman, Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No.35, Kotte Sri Jeyawardenapura Road, Rajagiriya. 2G. Eng. Saman Senaweera, Chairman, Sri Lanka Land Development Corporation, No. 35, Kotte Sri Jayawardenapura, Denapura Rd. Rajagiriya. 3. Dilshan Gunasekara Working Director Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No.35, Kotte Sri Jeyawardenapura Road, Rajagiriya. 4. Hon. Dinesh Gunawadena, Minister of Urban Development and Sacred Area Development, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 4A. Hon. Rauff Hakeem M.P., Minister of Water Supply, Drainage and Urban Development, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 4B. Hon. Champika Ranawaka M.P., Minister of Megapolis & Western Development Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 4C. Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa, Prime Minister and Minister of Urban Development, Water Supply & Housing Facilities Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 4D. Hon. Prasanna Ranatunge MP, Minister of Urban Development & Housing, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 4E. Hon. Anura Karunathilaka, Minister of Urban Development Constructions and Housing, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 5. Dr. D Ramanujan, Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development and Sacred Area Development and Chairman Urban Development Authority Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 5A. Gotabaya Rajapakse, RWP, RSP, psc, MSc, Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 3. 5B. Karunasena Hettiarachchi, Secretary, Ministry of Water Supply, Drainage and Urban Development, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla 5C. N. Rupasinghe, Ministry of Megapolis & Western Development, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla 5D. Dr. Priyath Bandu Wickrama Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Water Supply & Housing Facilities, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 5E. Mr. Pradeep Ratnayake, Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development & Housing, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 5F. MR. W.S. Sathyananda, Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development & Housing, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 5G. Mr. Ranjith Ariyarathne, Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development Constructions & Housing, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 6. Central Environmental Authority; Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 7. Jayantha Wickramaratna, Inspector General of Police; Police Head Quarters, Colombo 1. AND OTHERS Chandra Wickramasinghe, President, Rajagiriya Udyanaya Residents Association, No, 15, Rajagiriya Udyanaya, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya 2. Shelton Wijesinghe, Secretary, Rajagiriya Udyanaya Residents Association, No.4, Rajagiriya Udyanaya, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya (Now Deceased) 3. Jayantha Jayawardena, No, 615/32, Rajagiriya Udyanaya, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya 4. Chula De Silva No, 615/33, Rajagiriya Udyanaya, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya 5. Aurasa Gunasekara, No, 615/14, Rajagiriya Udyanaya, Nawala Road, Rajagirya Petitioners Vs. 1. Sri Lanka Development Corporation, (previously known as Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation), No.5, Kotte Sri Jeyawardenapura Road, Rajagiriya. 2. Karunasena Hettiarachchi. Chairman, Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No.35, Kotte Sri Jeyawardenapura Road, Rajagiriya. 2A. Harshana de Silva, Chairman, Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No.35, Kotte Sri Jeyawardenapura Road, Rajagiriya 2B. M.H.M.Salaman, Chairman, Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No.35, Kotte Sri Jeyawardenapura Road, Rajagirya. 2C. Mr. Asela Iddawela, Chairman, Sri lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No.35, Kotte Sri Jeyawardenpura Road, Rajagiriya. 2D. Mr. Roshan Gunawardena, Chairman, Sri Lanka Reclamation and Development Corporation, No.35, Kotte Sri Jeyawardenapura Road, Rajagiriya 2E. Major General M R W de Zoysa, Chairman, Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No.35, Kotte Sri Jeyawardenapura Road, Rajagiriya. 2F. Commodore Eng. Hiran Balasuriya, Chairman, Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No.35, Kotte Sri Jeyawardenapura Road, Rajagiriya. 2G. Eng. Saman Senaweera, Chairman, Sri Lanka Land Development Corporation, No. 35, Kotte Sri Jayawardenapura, Denapura Rd. Rajagiriya. 3. Dilshan Gunasekara Working Director Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation, No.35, Kotte Sri Jeyawardenapura Road, Rajagiriya. 4. Hon. Dinesh Gunawadena, Minister of Urban Development and Sacred Area Development, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 4A. Hon. Rauff Hakeem M.P., Minister of Water Supply, Drainage and Urban Development, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 4B. Hon. Champika Ranawaka M.P., Minister of Megapolis & Western Development Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 4C. Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa, Prime Minister and Minister of Urban Development, Water Supply & Housing Facilities Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 4D. Hon. Prasanna Ranatunge MP, Minister of Urban Development & Housing, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 4E. Hon. Anura Karunathilaka, Minister of Urban Development Constructions and Housing, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 5. Dr. D Ramanujan, Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development and Sacred Area Development and Chairman Urban Development Authority Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 5A. Gotabaya Rajapakse, RWP, RSP, psc, MSc, Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 3. 5B. Karunasena Hettiarachchi, Secretary, Ministry of Water Supply, Drainage and Urban Development, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla 5C. N. Rupasinghe, Ministry of Megapolis & Western Development, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla 5D. Dr. Priyath Bandu Wickrama Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Water Supply & Housing Facilities, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 5E. Mr. Pradeep Ratnayake, Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development & Housing, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 5F. MR. W.S. Sathyananda, Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development & Housing, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 5G. Mr. Ranjith Ariyarathne, Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development Constructions & Housing, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla. 6. Central Environmental Authority; Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla. 7. Jayantha Wickramaratna, Inspector General of Police; Police Head Quarters, Colombo 1. AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando 📄 Download
17 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/3/2024
Preethi Anton Presently at Welikada Prison, Colombo 2nd Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent 2. Indrani Gunasekara Presently at Welikada Prison Colombo 1st Accused-Accused-Respondent Preethi Anton Presently at Welikada Prison, Colombo 2nd Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent-Respondent 2. Indrani Gunasekara Presently at Welikada Prison Colombo 1st Accused-Accused-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe 📄 Download
17 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/93/2023
Balachandranprasth Satheesharan, 2, Allp Sarancoes Villons Argenteuil 95100 France 1st Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs. The Honourable Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 Complainant-Respondent-Respondent Balachandranprasth Satheesharan, 2, Allp Sarancoes Villons Argenteuil 95100 France 1st Accused-Appellant-Appellant Vs. The Honourable Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 Complainant-Respondent-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe 📄 Download
17 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/225/2017
1. M.R. Jansz No. 5/2, Crocktain Road, Hekitta, Wattala. 2. Globe Elite (Pvt) Ltd No.93/G/24, 1st Cross Street, Colombo-11. Respondents- Respondents- Appellants Vs. T.V. Dharamakeerthi, No. 310/4, Enderamulla Wattala. Applicant- Appellant- Respondent 1. M.R. Jansz No. 5/2, Crocktain Road, Hekitta, Wattala. 2. Globe Elite (Pvt) Ltd No.93/G/24, 1st Cross Street, Colombo-11. Respondents- Respondents- Appellants Vs. T.V. Dharamakeerthi, No. 310/4, Enderamulla Wattala. Applicant- Appellant- Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe 📄 Download
17 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/124/2018
Carson Cumberbatch PLC, 61, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 1. RESPONDENT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT -VsJames Sutcliffe, The Coach House, Hemingby, Horncastle, Lincolnshire LN9 5QF, The United Kingdom. PETITIONER – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT Carson Cumberbatch PLC, 61, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 1. RESPONDENT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT -VsJames Sutcliffe, The Coach House, Hemingby, Horncastle, Lincolnshire LN9 5QF, The United Kingdom. PETITIONER – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
17 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/26/2022
Mohamed Thasim Mohamed Siraj, No.10, 8th Lane, Maskeliya. 1ST DEFENDANT - APPELLANT - APPELLANT -VsMohamed Cassim Mohamed Harees, Mal 9th Road, Sammanthurai. PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT 2. Ansar Mohamed Aroos, No. 66 / 4 / 1A, Bandawa, Polgahawela. 3. Aroma Teas Private Limited, No.66 / 4 / 1A, Bandawa, Polgahawela. 2ND AND 3RD DEFENDANTS – RESPONDENTS - RESPONDENTS Mohamed Thasim Mohamed Siraj, No.10, 8th Lane, Maskeliya. 1ST DEFENDANT - APPELLANT - APPELLANT -VsMohamed Cassim Mohamed Harees, Mal 9th Road, Sammanthurai. PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT 2. Ansar Mohamed Aroos, No. 66 / 4 / 1A, Bandawa, Polgahawela. 3. Aroma Teas Private Limited, No.66 / 4 / 1A, Bandawa, Polgahawela. 2ND AND 3RD DEFENDANTS – RESPONDENTS - RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
17 Mar 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/19/2013
Kaluarachchige Ananda Nimal Chandra De Silva, 25/6A, Rodney Place, Colombo 08. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT -VsGrace Advertising (Private) Limited, 83, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 07. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT Kaluarachchige Ananda Nimal Chandra De Silva, 25/6A, Rodney Place, Colombo 08. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT -VsGrace Advertising (Private) Limited, 83, Gregory’s Road, Colombo 07. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
16 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/221/2025
1. Commander of Sri Lanka Navy Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters Sri Lanka Navy 2. Commodore L.A.R.D Hettiarachchi, NRX 0816 President of the Court Martial Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters Sri Lanka Navy 3. Commodore H.M.B.P. Rupasinghe NRX 0843 Member of the Court Martial Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters Sri Lanka Navy 4. T/Commodore A.M.D Amarakoon NRX 0937 Member of the Court Martial Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters Sri Lanka Navy 5. Commodore (LS) M.A.D.S.L Kularathna NVA 5958 Judge Advocate Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters Sri Lanka Navy RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. Commander M.S.D Perera, NRX 1229 No. 220, Shanthasiri Wewita, Bandaragama PETITIONER-RESPONDENT 1. Commander of Sri Lanka Navy Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters Sri Lanka Navy 2. Commodore L.A.R.D Hettiarachchi, NRX 0816 President of the Court Martial Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters Sri Lanka Navy 3. Commodore H.M.B.P. Rupasinghe NRX 0843 Member of the Court Martial Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters Sri Lanka Navy 4. T/Commodore A.M.D Amarakoon NRX 0937 Member of the Court Martial Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters Sri Lanka Navy 5. Commodore (LS) M.A.D.S.L Kularathna NVA 5958 Judge Advocate Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters Sri Lanka Navy RESPONDENT-PETITIONER Vs. Commander M.S.D Perera, NRX 1229 No. 220, Shanthasiri Wewita, Bandaragama PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne 📄 Download
16 Mar 2026 SC/CONT/2/2024
Hon. M.M.S. Bandara District Judge / Magistrate, District / Magistrate’s Court, Kekirawa. 1st Complainant S.M.W. Korasagalla, No. 40-D, Court Road, Kekirawa. 2nd Complainant vs. Roshini Abeyrathne No. A/70, Sekkupitiya, Kekirawa. Respondent Hon. M.M.S. Bandara District Judge / Magistrate, District / Magistrate’s Court, Kekirawa. 1st Complainant S.M.W. Korasagalla, No. 40-D, Court Road, Kekirawa. 2nd Complainant vs. Roshini Abeyrathne No. A/70, Sekkupitiya, Kekirawa. Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Yasantha Kodagoda, PC In the matter of a Rule in terms of Article 105(3) of the Constitution read with section 9 of Act No. 8 of 2024. 📄 Download
16 Mar 2026 SC/RULE/2/2024
Hon. M.M.S. Bandara District Judge / Magistrate, District / Magistrate’s Court, Kekirawa. 1st Complainant S.M.W. Korasagalla, No. 40-D, Court Road, Kekirawa. 2nd Complainant vs. Roshini Abeyrathne No. A/70, Sekkupitiya, Kekirawa. Respondent Hon. M.M.S. Bandara District Judge / Magistrate, District / Magistrate’s Court, Kekirawa. 1st Complainant S.M.W. Korasagalla, No. 40-D, Court Road, Kekirawa. 2nd Complainant vs. Roshini Abeyrathne No. A/70, Sekkupitiya, Kekirawa. Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Yasantha Kodagoda, PC In the matter of a Rule in terms of Article 105(3) of the Constitution read with section 9 of Act No. 8 of 2024. 📄 Download
13 Mar 2026 SC/FR/410/2019
Budgama Mudalige Thamila Dinushi Perera Attorney-at-Law 391/1/2, Dam Street, Colombo 12. PETITIONER For and on behalf of Devabandanage Ruwan Kumara of 216, Kakiriobada, Thalawilla, Suriyawewa, who is presently held at an undisclosed location. (abductee) -Vs- 1. Chandana Wickramaratne Acting Inspector General of Police Police Head Quarters, Colombo 1. 1A. Priyantha Weerasooriya Acting Inspector General of Police Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 2. Senior DIG Organized Crimes Unit Colombo 1. 3. Head Quarters Inspector Mirihana Police Station Mirihana. 4. Officer In Charge, Mirihana Law Enforcement Unit, Mirihana Police Station Mirihana. 5. Officer In Charge, Wellawa Police Station, Wellawa. 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS Budgama Mudalige Thamila Dinushi Perera Attorney-at-Law 391/1/2, Dam Street, Colombo 12. PETITIONER For and on behalf of Devabandanage Ruwan Kumara of 216, Kakiriobada, Thalawilla, Suriyawewa, who is presently held at an undisclosed location. (abductee) -Vs- 1. Chandana Wickramaratne Acting Inspector General of Police Police Head Quarters, Colombo 1. 1A. Priyantha Weerasooriya Acting Inspector General of Police Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 2. Senior DIG Organized Crimes Unit Colombo 1. 3. Head Quarters Inspector Mirihana Police Station Mirihana. 4. Officer In Charge, Mirihana Law Enforcement Unit, Mirihana Police Station Mirihana. 5. Officer In Charge, Wellawa Police Station, Wellawa. 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice S. Thurairaja, PC 📄 Download
13 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/39/2023, SC/APPEAL/40/2023, SC/APPEAL/41/2023, SC/APPEAL/42/2023, SC/APPEAL/43/2023, SC/APPEAL/44/2023, SC/APPEAL/45/2023, SC/APPEAL/46/2023
Lanka Marine Services (Private) Limited, 130, Glennie Street, Colombo - 02. And also of No. 117, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. APPELLANT-APPELLANT -Vs- Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT AND McLarens Lubricants Ltd, No. 284, Vauxhall Street, Colombo - 02. APPELLANT-APPELLANT -Vs- Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT Lanka Marine Services (Private) Limited, 130, Glennie Street, Colombo - 02. And also of No. 117, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. APPELLANT-APPELLANT -Vs- Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT AND McLarens Lubricants Ltd, No. 284, Vauxhall Street, Colombo - 02. APPELLANT-APPELLANT -Vs- Commissioner General of Inland Revenue, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice S. Thurairaja, PC 📄 Download
13 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/11/2018
1. Ganegoda Haputhanthrige Sujith Asanka, No. 152/2/1/, Panchikawatta Road, Colombo 10. And at, No 09, Bevill Squire, Salford, England. Presently at, No. 02. Melrose Place, Bristol, Bs8 2NQ, U.K. Now presently at, C/O: N.A.J.S.S. Perera, 64 Blackmoor, CourtLeedsLS17, 7RTUK. Appearing by his Attorney, Ganegoda Haputhanthrige Rupasinghe, No. 152/2/1, Panchikawatta Road, Colombo 10. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – PETITIONER Vs. Samarasinghe Gamachchige Senani Piumika Samarasinghe, No.71, Gajabapura, Kolonnawa. Presently at, No.09, Baggotts Place, New Castle, Under Lyme, Staffordshire, England. Now presently at, C/O Mrs. Chandrika Arulanathan, 94 Kingsbury Road, London, NW90AX. Appearing by her Attorney, M.J. Samarasinghe, No 71, Gajabapura, Kolonnawa. PLAINTIFF – PETITIONER – RESPONDENT Anna Jones, No, 405, Quedec Building Burry Street, Manchester, M37 DX, England. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT 1. Ganegoda Haputhanthrige Sujith Asanka, No. 152/2/1/, Panchikawatta Road, Colombo 10. And at, No 09, Bevill Squire, Salford, England. Presently at, No. 02. Melrose Place, Bristol, Bs8 2NQ, U.K. Now presently at, C/O: N.A.J.S.S. Perera, 64 Blackmoor, CourtLeedsLS17, 7RTUK. Appearing by his Attorney, Ganegoda Haputhanthrige Rupasinghe, No. 152/2/1, Panchikawatta Road, Colombo 10. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – PETITIONER Vs. Samarasinghe Gamachchige Senani Piumika Samarasinghe, No.71, Gajabapura, Kolonnawa. Presently at, No.09, Baggotts Place, New Castle, Under Lyme, Staffordshire, England. Now presently at, C/O Mrs. Chandrika Arulanathan, 94 Kingsbury Road, London, NW90AX. Appearing by her Attorney, M.J. Samarasinghe, No 71, Gajabapura, Kolonnawa. PLAINTIFF – PETITIONER – RESPONDENT Anna Jones, No, 405, Quedec Building Burry Street, Manchester, M37 DX, England. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Janak De Silva In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal under Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provision) Act No.19 of 1990 as amended by Act No.54 of 2006. 📄 Download
12 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/152/2025
K.G. Abeyrathna Galpoththegoda Watta, Mederigama, Mawanella. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- PETITIONER vs K.G. Wickramasingha Galpoththegoda Watta, Mawanella. K.G. Abeyrathna Galpoththegoda Watta, Mederigama, Mawanella. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- PETITIONER vs K.G. Wickramasingha Galpoththegoda Watta, Mawanella.
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath K. B. Wijeratne 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an appeal under an in terms of Article 127 of the Constitution read with Section 5(c) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006. SC/Appeal No. 152/2025 K.G. Abeyrathna SC/HC/LA No. 189/2022 Galpoththegoda Watta, SP/HCCA/KEG/66/2020(F) Mederigama, Mawanella. DC Mawanella Case No. 1194/L PLAINTIFF vs K.G. Wickramasingha Galpoththegoda Watta, Mawanella. DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN K.G. Wickramasingha Galpoththegoda Watta, Mawanella. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT vs 2 K.G. Abeyrathna Galpoththegoda Watta, Mederigama, Mawanella. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN K.G. Abeyrathna Galpoththegoda Watta, Mederigama, Mawanella. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- PETITIONER vs K.G. Wickramasingha Galpoththegoda Watta, Mawanella. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT￾RESPONDENT BEFORE : P. Padman Surasena, C.J. K. Priyantha Fernando, J M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne, J. COUNSEL : Akila Aluthwatte for the Plaintiff-Respondent- Petitioner. Dr. Sunil Abeyratne instructed by Buddhika Alagiyawanna for the Defendant-Appellant￾Respondent. 3 ARGUED ON : 02.09.2025 DECIDED ON : 12.03.2026 M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J. Introduction The Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) instituted an action in the District Court of Mawanella claiming title to Lot No. 8 in the final partition plan No. 75 dated January 18, 1955, made by D. Liyanage, Licensed Surveyor, in case No. 8699 of the District Court of Kegalle. Upon issuance of a commission, W.M.L.R. Weerasinghe, Licensed Surveyor, made Plan No. 3106, marked ‘පැ 7’, wherein he superimposed Lot No. 8 on the final partition plan No. 75, depicting the aforesaid Lot No. 8 as Lots Nos. 1 and 2 in his plan No. 3106. Accordingly, the Plaintiff amended his plaint, claiming title to the said Lots Nos. 1 and 2 in Plan No. 3106 (පැ 7). The original owner of Lot No. 8, as admitted at the trial, was Kehelpannala Gedara Punchi Appuhamy, who was declared the owner of the subject matter by the final partition decree in Case No. 8699/P. The said Punchi Appuhamy, by deed of gift No. 27286 dated September 30, 1968 attested by G.C.H. Molligoda, Notary Public, marked as ‘පැ 2 (අ)’ gifted the subject matter to his son Kehelpannala Gedara Amarasinghe in consideration of the natural love and affection. The donee, Amarasinghe predeceased Punchi Appuhamy, and after the death of Amarasinghe, Punchi Appuhamy revoked the deed of gift No. 27286 (‘පැ 2 (අ)’) by deed of revocation No. 2020 dated August 10, 1977 (පැ 3), attested by F. G. W. Godakumbura, Notary Public. Thereafter, on the same day, Punchi Appuhamy gifted the subject land to his other son, Kehelpannala Gedara Abeyrathne, the Plaintiff, by deed of gift No. 2021, attested by the same Notary Public. The Defendant, in his evidence, admitted that the Plaintiff is the owner of Lot No. 8 in plan No. 75 (‘පැ 2’) and 4 is held and possessed by the Plaintiff1 . Therefore, the Plaintiff’s title to the subject land was not in dispute. It is also common ground that the Defendant is the owner of adjoining Lot No. 7 in Plan No. 75 (‘පැ 2’) and is held and possessed by the Defendant2 . The pivotal issue for determination at the trial was whether the Defendant had perfected prescriptive title to the disputed portion of the Plaintiff’s land by reason of continuous, uninterrupted, and adverse possession for the requisite statutory period. It is admitted that both the Plaintiff and Defendant derive their title to their respective lots from the final partition decree in case No. 8699 in the District Court of Kegalle. Both the Plaintiff and Defendant took out commissions on two different surveyors to survey the two lots owned by them. The Plaintiff’s land, Lot No. 8 and the Defendant’s land Lot No. 7, in Plan No. 75 (‘පැ 2’) were resurveyed and were superimposed on both the Plaintiffs Plan No. 3106 (‘පැ 7’) and the Defendant’s Plan No. 5882 (‘වි 1’) made by K.S. Panditharathna, Licensed Surveyor. Not only the Plaintiff’s Plan ‘පැ 7’ but also the Defendant’s Plan ‘වි 1’ confirms that the Defendant has encroached into Lot No. 8 belonging to the Plaintiff. However, a slight difference in the extent of the encroachment could be observed between the two plans made by the two commissioners. According to ‘පැ 7’, the encroachment is 1.5 perches (Lot No. 1), whereas in plan ‘වි 1’, it is 1.53 perches (Lot No. 5), being a difference of 0.03 perches. Be that as it may, the Defendant claimed that he had prescribed to the encroached extent. The Plaintiff’s action being one of rei vindicatio, the burden of proving title rests on the Plaintiff. Only upon the establishment of the Plaintiff’s title does the burden shift to the Defendant to prove the character in which he possesses the 1 Vide Defendant’s evidence at pages 83, 84 and 86. 2 Vide paragraph 6 of the Plaint, evidence of the Plaintiff at Page 57 of the appeal brief, and evidence of the Defendant at page 79/80/83/85 of the appeal brief. 5 disputed land. In the present case, the Defendant did not dispute the Plaintiff’s title to Lot No. 8 before the District Court. Accordingly, the learned District Judge of Mawanella entered the judgment in favour of the Plaintiff and granted reliefs (අ) and (ආ) sought in the amended plaint, namely, a declaration of title to the land described in the schedule to the plaint and ejectment of the Defendant from the encroached portion thereof. The learned District Judge further dismissed the counterclaim of the Defendant, which sought a declaration that he was the lawful owner of the disputed portion of land. Being aggrieved by the Judgement of the learned District Judge, the Defendant appealed to the Civil Appellate High Court where an argument was raised for the first time that the revocation of deed of gift No. 27286 (පැ 2 (අ)) after the demise of the donee is invalid. The learned High Court Judges upheld the Defendant’s position and held that the revocation is invalid. Accordingly, the learned High Court judges dismissed the action of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff then sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court. Having heard the submissions of the parties, this Court decided to grant Leave to Appeal on the following three questions of law; \\\" 1. Has the Defendant challenged the title of the Plaintiff in the trial by way of raising an issue? 2. If the answer to question No. [1] is in Negative, in view of the failure on the part of the Defendant to establish his claim to the disputed portion of Lot 1 of Plan No 3106 dated 05.10.2013. whether the Plaintiff is entitled to eject the Defendant from that portion of land? 6 3. In the circumstances of this case, is the Plaintiff entitled in any case, to eject the Defendant on the basis that the Plaintiff’s title was not challenged by the Defendant in the trial?”3 Analysis In the case before us, Deed of revocation No. 2020 (‘පැ 3’) was neither put in issue nor objected to at the time of marking. As also asserted by the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Lanka Ports Authority and another vs Jugolinija - Boal East,4 that if no objection is taken at the closure of a case, documents read in evidence, are evidence for all purposes of the law. Thus, in the case of Violet Perera vs Rupa Hewawasam5 Court of Appeal refused to look into the admissibility of the documents in issue as they had not been objected to at the District Court. At this stage the pertinent question arises as to whether this question could have been raised in appeal for the first time. In the Supreme Court case of Talagala vs Gangodawila Co-operative Stores Society6 it held that “Where a question which is raised for the first time in appeal is a pure question of law and is not a mixed question of law and fact, it can be dealt with.” The rationale for the inference that a pure question of law which does not require the ascertainment of new facts can be raised for the first time in appeal is the principle that findings of primary facts by a trial Judge who hears and sees witnesses should not be lightly disturbed on appeal. However, if a question of law mingled with facts raised for the first time in appeal, where that point might have been put forward in the Court below under one of the issues raised, and the Court which hears the appeal has before it all 3 Journal Entry dated 02.09.2025. 4 (1981) 1 Sri L R 18. 5 [1985] 1 Sri LR 229. 6 48 NLR 472. 7 the materials required to decide the question, then the appeal Court can decide on such an issue.7 This has been very well articulated in the case of Leechman Co. Ltd vs Rangalle Consolidated Limited8 where it was held that “Where the point depends upon a question of fact which is disputed and should be determined on evidence, then it cannot be taken up for the first time in appeal unless the facts necessary for the determination appear in the evidence and are not in dispute at all.” As I have already stated above, in the case before us, both the deed of gift and the deed of revocation had been marked without any objection. In light of the above analysis, the validity of the Deed of Revocation is a mixed question of law and fact. Where the Respondents failed to place the relevant factual circumstances in issue, or waived any objection by accepting ‘පැ 3’ in evidence before the original court, such matters cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. As a result, the title of the Plaintiff must be deemed to have been admitted. Sri Lanka\\\'s system of administration of justice being adversarial in nature, this Court does not have the freedom of a wild horse to embark on a voyage of discovery to decide on issues that are not presented before the judge for adjudication. As stated earlier, in the instant case, the learned High Court Judges set aside the Judgement of the learned District Judge acting under the principles of Kandyan law. For the High Court judges to rule on the validity of the deed of revocation, first, it needed to be established that the Deed of Gift (‘පැ 2 (අ)’) is governed by Kandyan law. In the circumstances, the revocability of said deed becomes a mixed question of law and fact. Since the Deed of gift was never put in issue, there was no necessity for the Plaintiff to lead evidence regarding the applicable law, and there is not even an iota of evidence regarding the said facts. Therefore, 7 Setha vs Weerakoon 49 NLR 225. 8 [1981] 2 Sri LR 373. 8 learned High Court judges erred in law in setting aside the judgment of the learned District Judge on that basis. Be that as it may, since the learned High Court Judges have set aside the judgment of the learned District Judge considering the validity of the deed of revocation, let me also address the issue whether there is a valid revocation in the case before us. Under the Roman Dutch law, the common law of this country, a deed of gift cannot be revoked without a decree of court unless the right to revoke is reserved in the deed itself. Even in such instances Court would allow revocation only in certain exceptional circumstances such as ingratitude, donor having children after a gift of great value, and being prejudicial to the legitimate portion of the donor’s children due to its magnitude. 9 Revocation of Irrevocable Deeds of Gift on the Ground of Gross Ingratitude Act, No. 5 of 2017, has now entrenched the revocation of irrevocable deeds of gift on the ground of gross ingratitude only on an order made by a competent court. However, Kandyan law, unlike the general law, allows the donor to revoke any Deed of Gift during his lifetime unless it falls within the purview of any of the exceptional grounds provided under Kandyan Law Declaration and Amendment Ordinance 39 of 1938 as amended by Act No 25 of 1944. Section 4 of the Kandyan Law Declaration and Amendment Ordinance reads as follows; “Section 4 (1) Subject to the provisions and exceptions hereinafter contained, a donor may, during his lifetime and without the consent of the donee or of any other person, cancel or revoke in whole or in part any gift, whether made before or after the commencement of this Ordinance, and such gift and any instrument effecting the same shall thereupon become void and of no effect to the extent set forth in the instrument of cancellation or revocation: 9 See Pererira, The Laws of Ceylon, 2nd Edition- page 610. 9 Provided that the right, title, or interest of any person in any immovable property shall not, if such right, title, or interest has accrued before the commencement of this Ordinance, be affected or prejudiced by reason of the cancellation or revocation of the gift to any greater extent than it might have been if this Ordinance had not been enacted. (2) [….]” Accordingly, ordinarily deed of gift under Kandyan law is revocable irrespective of whether the donee consented or not. Even in instances where the subject matter of such Deed of Gift has been passed for a valuable consideration, still the donor’s right to revoked remain unaffected. Hence in the Court of Appeal case of Muthubanda and Another vs Gunaratne,10 held as follows; “Section 4 (1) of the Kandyan Law Declaration and Amendment Ordinance clearly reserves to the donor a right to revoke a gift and section 5 (1) (d) provides for the renunciation of the right to revoke. These two sections taken together clearly spell out the donor’s right to revoke and hence on a plain reading of the two sections it is my view that the donee by a subsequent retransfer to a 3rd party could not defeat the donor\\\'s [sic] right to revoke.” In the Court of Appeal case of Sirisena vs Eyelyn de Silva11 where the donor revoked the deed of gift, 16 days after the death of the original donee, the Court rejecting the argument of the learned Counsel for the heirs of the original donee held that; “I am inclined to take the view that under the Kandyan Law the heirs be they minors or majors get no better interest than the original donee and they all get only a contingent interest. Therefore, once the deed of gift is revoked the said contingent interest terminates and the donor re-acquires title. As section 4(1) of 10 [1999] 3 Sri L R 1. 11 [2003] 2 Sri L.R 255. 10 the Kandyan Law Declaration Amendment Ordinance specifically states that the consent of the donee or any other person is not required covers the contingent rights of the heirs of the deceased and they forfeit their rights on revocation of the deed of gift by the donor.” However, as I have already noted above, the right to revocation of a donor is subject to the qualifications provided in Section 5 of the Kandyan Law Declaration and Amendment Ordinance. Section 5 (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 4 (1), it shall not be lawful for a donor to cancel or revoke any of the following gifts where any such gift is made after the commencement of this Ordinance: - (a) any gift by virtue of which the property which is the subject of that gift shall vest in the trustee or the controlling viharadhipati for the time being of a temple under the provisions of section 20 of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance or in any bhikkhu with succession to his sacerdotal pupil or pupils or otherwise than as pudgalika for the benefit of himself and his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns; (b) any gift in consideration of and expressed to be in consideration of a future marriage, which marriage has subsequently taken place; (c) any gift creating or effecting a charitable trust as defined by section 99 of the Trusts Ordinance; (d) any gift, the right to cancel or revoke which shall have been expressly renounced by the donor, either in the instrument effecting that gift or in any subsequent instrument, by a declaration containing the words \\\" I renounce the right to 11 revoke \\\" or words of substantially the same meaning or, if the language of the instrument be not English, the equivalent of those words in the language of the instrument: Provided that a declaration so made in any such subsequent instrument shall be of no force or effect unless such instrument bears stamps to the value of five rupees and is executed in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Frauds Ordinance or of the Deeds and Documents (Execution before Public Officers) Ordinance. (2)[…]” Accordingly, even if the deed states that the gift is absolute and irrevocable, if the right to revoke is not renounced with the words \\\" I renounce the right to revoke \\\" or similar words, such deed can be revoked. Thus, in P. B. Ratnayake vs M. S. B. J. Bandara, 12 the Supreme Court held that “The words “absolute and irrevocable” are only adjectival description of the gift but the essential requirement is a transitive verb of express renunciation. Words merely of further assurance are insufficient. The use of the words “absolute and irrevocable” and “to hold the premises for ever” do not satisfy the requirement of section 5(1)(d) of the Ordinance. Deed 8247 was revocable.” A similar view has been expressed in the Court of Appeal case of Somalatha and Others vs Wickremasinghe and Others13 where it was observed that; “Kandyan Law gives the right to a Donor without the consent of the Donee or any other person, such as the life interest holder, to cancel or revoke any gift by an instrument in writing in conformity with the law. Therefore, the question of a 12 [1990] 1 SRI.L.R. 156. 13 [2002] 2 Sri LR 347. 12 unilateral revocation [argument (ii) above] without notice to the donee does not arise for consideration. […] The basic question to be asked in gifts seeking exception to come under section 5 (1) (d) is not how strongly the gift had been expressed but whether there had been a deliberate and express renunciation by the donor of his right to revoke. In other words, the donor, conscious of his right to revoke under Kandyan Law, should have expressed in words similar to the words mentioned in section 5 (1) (d) that he was renouncing his right to revoke. In the instant case the words expressed (2D2 and 2D3 above) were descriptive of the nature of the gift. That is, the donor explained deed No. 531 that he was giving a gift which was irrevocable and absolute under all circumstances. He did not say that he was renouncing his right to revoke such an \\\"irrevocable and absolute\\\" gift. The section expected such renunciation in words similar to what is mentioned in section 5 (1) (d), if a gift was to be considered as an exception to the general rule of revocability of gifts under Kandyan Law.” [emphasis added] For the aforementioned reasons, I am of the view that the learned High Court judges erred in holding that the revocation of a deed of gift is not possible when the donee is not alive. Since the title of the Plaintiff to the corpus in question is not disputed, next I will deal with the question as to whether the Defendant has established a prescriptive title that will operate adversely to the paper title of the Plaintiff. For the Defendant to succeed in his claim for prescriptive title, the onus is on him to satisfy all ingredients set out in section 3 of the Prescription Ordinance No. 22 of 1871 as amended. Accordingly, the Defendant must prove undisturbed and uninterrupted possession by a title adverse to or independent of that of the Plaintiff in such action for ten years prior to the institution of the action. In the case before us, the Defendant seems to suggest to the Court that the portion that said to have been encroached by him is in his possession as per a determination made by the District Court in a partition action. He claims that the common fence that was erected including Plaintiff’s portion of land, is the fence 13 erected by Defendant’s father as per the judgment of the partition action filed in Kegalle District Court. “ප්‍ර - තමන් කියා සිටියා මේ මෙදීමට මයෝජිත ඉඩමයි තමන්මේ ඉඩමයි අතර මපාදු මායිම පියා හැදුව මායිම කියලා? උ - ඔව් ප්‍ර - ඒ වමේම තමන් කියනවා දිස්ත්‍රික් අධිකරණමයන් මවන් කල මායිම තමා තිමයන්මන් කියලා? උ – ඔව්” He has repeatedly confirmed his assertion in the cross examination. උ- පියා හිටවපු වැට. මවන වැටක් හිටවලා නැ. එක වැටයි තිමයන්මන්. දිස්ත්‍රික් උස්ත්‍ාවිමයන් මෙදු වැට තමයි තිමයන්මන් (Appeal brief page 87) ප්‍ර- තමුන්ට විරසිිංහ මහතාමේ කැෙලි අිංක. 01 ගත්තත්, පණ්ඩිතරත්න මහතමේ 5882 පිඹුමේ කැෙලි අිංක. 5 ගත්තත්, ඒ මකාටස්ත්‍රතුල මපාදු මයිමක් මලස්ත්‍ තමුන් කියන්න උත්ස්ත්‍ාහ කරන කලු මේඛාව මකාටස්ත්‍ මකායි කාලමේ වැටහිර ගස්ත්‍ර හිමටව්වාද කියලා තමුන්ට කීමට හැකියාවක් නැහැ කියලා මයෝජනා කරනවා? උ- ස්ත්‍රවාමිනි වැටහිර ගස්ත්‍ර මම හිමටව්මව් නැහැ. අමේ පියා විසින් හිටවපු වැට තිමයන්මන්. මම එක වැටක්වත් හිමටව්මව් නැහැ. (Appeal brief page 90) I am unable to accept the Defendant\\\'s contention that the District Court executed a writ of possession in a way that wrongfully encroached on another person’s 14 portion. This seriously questions the Defendant\\\'s credibility and reliability as a witness. The very version of the Defendant’s story is shaken by the evidence of the licensed surveyor and Court Commissioner L.R. Weerasinghe, who clearly identifies the Defendant\\\'s encroachment into the Plaintiff’s portion. “කැෙලි අිංක.7 ට ඈදාමගන තිමෙනවා කැෙලි අිංක. 8හි මකාටස්ත්‍ක්. ඒ ෙව හදුනා ගන්න පුළුවන් වුනා. ඒ මකාටස්ත්‍ මමේ පිඹුමේ කැෙලි අිංක1 න් දක්වලා තිමෙනවා. කැෙලි අිංක 1 නැමගනහිරට ඇති කළු පාට මේඛාමවන් මපන්වලා තිමෙනවා. පැලඉනි වැටක් මපන්ුේ කර තිමෙනවා. මදමගාලමලෝ අතර බුක්ති විදින වැට මපන්ුේකර තිමෙන්මන්. ඒ අුව කැෙලි අිංක.1 කියන්මන් විත්තිකරු පැමිණිලිකරුමේ ඉඩමමන් අලලාගත්ත මකාටස්ත්‍ක කියන්මන් ලියනමේ මහතාමේ අිංක.75/8 කැෙැලල. කැෙලි අිංක.8 කියන එක මේ නඩුමව් පැමිණිලිකරුට තිමෙන ඉඩම.” (Appeal brief page 72) The evidence of the licensed surveyor falls in line with the Plaintiff’s version of the story. It is the contention of the Plaintiff that the Defendant had erected a new fence on or around August 03, 2011, encroaching upon the land of the Plaintiff. The land that was encroached upon is also depicted by Lot 1 in Plan No 3106 dated October 05, 2013.14 This was affirmed by the brother of Plaintiff at the examination- in-chief. ‘මමේ ඉඩමයි වික්‍රමසිිංහමේ ඉඩමයි අතර මම දන්නා කාලමේදී මායිේ මලස්ත්‍ වැටහිර තිබුණා. එය පරණ මායිමක්. එමහම බුක්ති විඳමගන එන මකාට සිද්ධධියක් වුනා. විත්තිකරු ෙලහත්කාරමයන් වැට කපලා තිමෙනවා. පරණ වැට ගලවා අලුමතන් වැටක් ගැහුවා.’ (page 57 of appeal brief) 14 Paragraph 7 of the Plaint. 15 Furthermore, the Defendant in this case, has not at any point identified the time period from which he has begun to possess the corpus in question adversely to the Plaintiff. When he was questioned as to the commencement of the prescriptive possession, he had failed to identify the starting point of his prescriptive period. “ප්‍ර - බුක්තියක් ආරේභ වූ ආකාරයක් ගැන තමුන් කියන්න දන්මන් නැහැ කියලා මයෝජනා කරනවා? උ - මම දන්නා කාලමේ සිට බුක්ති වින්ද වැට” (Appeal brief page 91) If one is unable to point to a specific act or series of acts to show that his possession has become adverse, how can one claim a prescriptive title? Samayawardhene J. in Athukoralalage Don Chandrasekera vs Athukoralalage Don Sarathchandra and others15observed that, “Mere possession is not prescriptive possession. It should be adverse possession known to the real owner. Adverse possession should continue uninterruptedly for 10 years. For mere possession to become adverse possession, there should be an overt act for the real owner and the Court to understand the starting point of prescriptive possession. [..]The 10-year period begins to run from that point, not from the mere act of possession, as not every instance of possession qualifies as prescriptive possession.” [emphasis added] The evidence that the Defendant primarily relied on to prove his continuous possession is the cultivation of certain trees. However, mere cultivation of certain plants does not itself suffice to prove ‘adverse possession’ as required under section 3 of the Prescription Ordinance. This is evident by the evidence given by Defendant himself at the cross examination. “ප්‍ර- තමුන්ලා ඒ මකාටස්ත්‍ට කාලාවමරෝධය යටතට අවුරුදු 10 ක් බුක්ති වින්දා 15 SC APPEAL NO: SC/APPEAL/30/2016, SC Minutes of 04.07.2024. 16 කියන්න කිසිම ස්ත්‍ාධකයක් නැහැ කියලා මයෝජනා කරනවා. ? උ- පියා ඉන්න කාලමේ පටන්ම ඒ මකාටස්ත්‍ බුක්ති වින්දා. ප්‍ර-පැමිණිලිකරුමේ මකාටස්ත්‍ක් අලලාමගන් තමුන්ලා භුක්ති වින්දා කියන්න තමුන්ට කිසිදු මලඛණගත ස්ත්‍ාක්ියක් මහෝ වාචික ස්ත්‍ාක්ියක් නැහැ කියලා මයෝජනා කරනවා ? උ-මම දන්මන් නැහැ ඒක කියන්න මමේ මදමවිපිමයෝ ඉන්න කාලමේ සිට තමා බුක්ති විදින්මන්. ඒක කියන්න මම දන්මන් නැහැ.” (Appeal brief page 90) As held by several decisions of the Supreme Court,16 a prescription is an illegality made legal. Here law does not intend to confer any premium on the wrongdoing of a person in wrongful possession but rather seeks to penalize a person who has slept on his own rights. Accordingly, the Court would rather follow a strict approach in allowing claims of prescription. Unless a party seeking to establish a prescriptive title proves all the elements required to establish such a title to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court would not hesitate in disallowing such a claim. When evaluating the totality of evidence, I am of the view that Defendant has failed to establish a prescriptive title to the corpus in question as required by law. Accordingly, the Defendant is not entitled to succeed his claim of prescriptive title, and therefore the Plaintiff is entitled to eject the Defendant from that portion of land that is in dispute. Conclusion I answer questions of law raised in the following manner; 16 Corea vs Iseris Appuhamy (1911) 15 NLR 65 at 78, Kiriamma vs Podibanda [2005] BLR 9 at 11, Fathima Naseera vs Mohamed Haris (CA/818/96(F), CA Minutes of 11.07.2012, Sumanawathie vs Sirisena (CA/830/98(F), CA Minutes of 10.03.2014. 17 1. Has the Defendant challenged the title of the Plaintiff in the trial by way of raising an issue? No 2. If the answer to question No 1 is in Negative, in view of the failure on the part of the Defendant to establish his claim to the disputed portion of Lot 1 of Plan No 3106 dated 05.10.2013. whether the Plaintiff is entitled to eject the Defendant from that portion of land? Yes 3. In the circumstances of this case, is the Plaintiff entitled in any case, to eject the Defendant on the basis that the Plaintiff’s title was not challenged by the Defendant in the trial? Yes I affirm the Judgment of the learned District Judge. The judgment of the learned High Court Judges is set aside. Appeal is allowed. The Appellant is entitled to costs of this court and the courts below. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT P. Padman Surasena, C.J. I agree. CHIEF JUSTICE K. Priyantha Fernando, J. I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT 📄 Download
12 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/177/2023
Henarath Mohottige Janaka Chaminda Perera, No.114/1, Ihala Biyanwila, Kandy Road, Kadawatha. Defendant—Respondent-Appellant Vs. Merin Dinusha Aberathna, No.434, Kandy Road, Kadawatha. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent Henarath Mohottige Janaka Chaminda Perera, No.114/1, Ihala Biyanwila, Kandy Road, Kadawatha. Defendant—Respondent-Appellant Vs. Merin Dinusha Aberathna, No.434, Kandy Road, Kadawatha. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli 📄 Download
12 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/205/2014
(deceased) Abdul Latif Ahamed Faumi, No.12, Dematagoda Place, Colombo -09. Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner- Appellant Mohamed Fahim, No.12, Dematagoda Place, Colombo -09. Substituted-Defendant-Respondent- Petitioner-Appellant Vs. (deceased) E.Indrani Diyago alias, E. Indrani Wijerathna, No.2, Samagi Mawatha, Kurunduwatta, Kanuwana, Ja-Ela. Plaintif-Appellant-Respondent-Respondent Dinal Anthony Channa Diyago, No.269, Koswatta, Taalangama North, Mattegoda. Substituted-Plaintif-Appellant-Respondent-Respondent (deceased) Abdul Latif Ahamed Faumi, No.12, Dematagoda Place, Colombo -09. Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner- Appellant Mohamed Fahim, No.12, Dematagoda Place, Colombo -09. Substituted-Defendant-Respondent- Petitioner-Appellant Vs. (deceased) E.Indrani Diyago alias, E. Indrani Wijerathna, No.2, Samagi Mawatha, Kurunduwatta, Kanuwana, Ja-Ela. Plaintif-Appellant-Respondent-Respondent Dinal Anthony Channa Diyago, No.269, Koswatta, Taalangama North, Mattegoda. Substituted-Plaintif-Appellant-Respondent-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli 📄 Download
12 Mar 2026 SC/FR/250/2020
1. Jayakodi Arachchilage Amarathunge 36A, Ashely Peris Mawatha, Kagalle. 2. Dahanayakage Chandrani Dahanayake 45/C1, Jesminwatta, Kiribathkumbura. 3. Manikin Gedera Dharmasena, 271/4, Samagi Mawatha, Pitipana Uthura, Homagama. 4. Polgaswatte Gamaralage Chandrawathie 1/50/1, Pansalagawawatta, Meneripitiya, Warakapola. 5. Sujeewa Sepali Kumarawadu, 55/10, 2nd Lane, Kandahena Watta, Depanama, Pannipitiya. 6. Liyana Arachchige Kithsiri, Weeramalyaya, Hidellana, Ratnapura. 7. Chandralatha Surangani Hettiarachchi Senanayaka, 177, Sarasawi Asapuwa, Hapugala, Wackwella, Galle. 8. Muhammad Musthafa Abdul Kaiyoon, 251, Police, Road, Sammanthurai. 9. Ranawaka Arachchige Pradeepika Ranawaka, 298A, Weera Mawatha Bangalawatta, Kottawa. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. I D Jayantha Kulathunga, College of Technology, Puttalama Road, Kurunegala. 2. Nevil Edirisinghe, Department of Technical Education & Training, No. 557, Olcott Road, Colombo 10. 3. S. Parameswaran, Department of Technical Education & Training, No. 557, Olcott Road, Colombo 10. 4. H. M. T. K. Herath, Technical College, Halawata Road, Wariyapola. and Others. 1. Jayakodi Arachchilage Amarathunge 36A, Ashely Peris Mawatha, Kagalle. 2. Dahanayakage Chandrani Dahanayake 45/C1, Jesminwatta, Kiribathkumbura. 3. Manikin Gedera Dharmasena, 271/4, Samagi Mawatha, Pitipana Uthura, Homagama. 4. Polgaswatte Gamaralage Chandrawathie 1/50/1, Pansalagawawatta, Meneripitiya, Warakapola. 5. Sujeewa Sepali Kumarawadu, 55/10, 2nd Lane, Kandahena Watta, Depanama, Pannipitiya. 6. Liyana Arachchige Kithsiri, Weeramalyaya, Hidellana, Ratnapura. 7. Chandralatha Surangani Hettiarachchi Senanayaka, 177, Sarasawi Asapuwa, Hapugala, Wackwella, Galle. 8. Muhammad Musthafa Abdul Kaiyoon, 251, Police, Road, Sammanthurai. 9. Ranawaka Arachchige Pradeepika Ranawaka, 298A, Weera Mawatha Bangalawatta, Kottawa. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. I D Jayantha Kulathunga, College of Technology, Puttalama Road, Kurunegala. 2. Nevil Edirisinghe, Department of Technical Education & Training, No. 557, Olcott Road, Colombo 10. 3. S. Parameswaran, Department of Technical Education & Training, No. 557, Olcott Road, Colombo 10. 4. H. M. T. K. Herath, Technical College, Halawata Road, Wariyapola. and Others.
⚖ Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli 📄 Download
12 Mar 2026 SC/FR/428/2016
Benthota Payagala Arachchilage Chinthaka Premaruwan, No.160/13, Maligagodalla Road, Udumulla, Mullleriyawa. Petitioner Vs. 1. Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No. 609, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09. 2. Mr. T. G. Jayasinghe, Chairman & Managing Director, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No. 609, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09. 2A. Chairman & Managing Director, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No. 609, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09. 2B. Mr. Sumith Wijesinghe, Chairman & Managing Director, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No. 609, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09. 2C. Mr. M. Uvais Mohamed, Chairman & Managing Director, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No. 609, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09. 2D. Mr. Saliya Wickramasuriya, Chairman, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No. 609, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09. Added as 2D Respondent 3. Anjalee Kumaragamage, Director, Ministry of Petroleum Resources Development, No.80, Sir Ernest de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 07. 4. W. M. K. R. B. Wickramasinghe, Deputy General Manager (Marketing), Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No. 609, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09. and Others. Benthota Payagala Arachchilage Chinthaka Premaruwan, No.160/13, Maligagodalla Road, Udumulla, Mullleriyawa. Petitioner Vs. 1. Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No. 609, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09. 2. Mr. T. G. Jayasinghe, Chairman & Managing Director, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No. 609, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09. 2A. Chairman & Managing Director, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No. 609, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09. 2B. Mr. Sumith Wijesinghe, Chairman & Managing Director, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No. 609, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09. 2C. Mr. M. Uvais Mohamed, Chairman & Managing Director, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No. 609, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09. 2D. Mr. Saliya Wickramasuriya, Chairman, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No. 609, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09. Added as 2D Respondent 3. Anjalee Kumaragamage, Director, Ministry of Petroleum Resources Development, No.80, Sir Ernest de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 07. 4. W. M. K. R. B. Wickramasinghe, Deputy General Manager (Marketing), Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No. 609, Dr. Danister de Silva Mawatha, Colombo 09. and Others.
⚖ Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli 📄 Download
12 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/165/2019
Herath Mudiyanselage Kapuru Menika “Sirisevana”, Wewa Pahala, Meewellewa, Nikaweratiya. PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. 1. The Land Commissioner-General Land Commissioner General\'s Department, No. 7, Gregory\'s Avenue, Colombo 7. 2. The Divisional Secretary of Kotawehera Divisional Secretariat, Kotawehera. 3. Provincial Land Commissioner (NorthWestern Province), Provincial Land Commissioner\'s Office (N.W.P.), Kurunegala. 4. Ven. Mahamithawa Ayupala Viharadhipathi, Sri Shailatharamaya, Meewellewa. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS Herath Mudiyanselage Kapuru Menika “Sirisevana”, Wewa Pahala, Meewellewa, Nikaweratiya. PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. 1. The Land Commissioner-General Land Commissioner General\'s Department, No. 7, Gregory\'s Avenue, Colombo 7. 2. The Divisional Secretary of Kotawehera Divisional Secretariat, Kotawehera. 3. Provincial Land Commissioner (NorthWestern Province), Provincial Land Commissioner\'s Office (N.W.P.), Kurunegala. 4. Ven. Mahamithawa Ayupala Viharadhipathi, Sri Shailatharamaya, Meewellewa. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna 📄 Download
11 Mar 2026 SC/FR/56/2023
Dinesh Priyadarshana Dodangoda “Danushka”, Thanahenawatta, Midigama, Ahangama. Petitioner Vs. 1. Saman Jayasinghe Excise Commissioner General Excise Department No. 353, Kotte Road, Rajagiriya. 2. R. A. N. J. Ranaweera, Excise Inspector Excise and Narcotic Unit Excise Department No. 838/2/1, Thalagaha Junction, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 3. G. D. Pushpakumara, Excise Corporal No. 725, Excise and Narcotic Unit, Excise Department No. 838/2/1, Thalagaha Junction, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 4. W. M. D. Indika, Excise Corporal No. 826, Excise and Narcotic Unit, Excise Department No. 838/2/1, Thalagaha Junction, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 5. M. D. Gamage, Excise Corporal No. 971, Excise and Narcotic Unit, Excise Department No. 838/2/1, Thalagaha Junction, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 6. A. P. Iresh Kavinda, Excise Guard No.1118, Excise and Narcotic Unit, Excise Department No. 838/2/1, Thalagaha Junction, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 7. J. A. G. M. Madushanka, Excise Guard No. 1082, Excise and Narcotic Unit, Excise Department No. 838/2/1, Thalagaha Junction, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 8. D. M. I. Disanayake Excise Guard No. 1079, Excise and Narcotic Unit, Excise Department No. 838/2/1, Thalagaha Junction, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 9. P.T.C. Ekanayake Excise Guard No. 1029, Excise and Narcotic Unit, Excise Department No. 838/2/1, Thalagaha Junction, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 10. Dananjaya Officer, Excise and Narcotic Unit, Excise Department No. 838/2/1, Thalagaha Junction, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 11. Sugath Excise Department No. 838/2/1, Thalagaha Junction, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 12. J. I. S. Perera alias Rajagiriye Sujee Higgahawatta Road, Gothatuwa. 13. C. D. Wickramarathne, Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 14.Hon. Tiran Alles Minister of Public Security, Ministry of Public Security, 14th floor, Suhurupaya Battaramulla. 15.Honourable Attorney General, Department of the Attorney General, Colombo 12. Respondents Dinesh Priyadarshana Dodangoda “Danushka”, Thanahenawatta, Midigama, Ahangama. Petitioner Vs. 1. Saman Jayasinghe Excise Commissioner General Excise Department No. 353, Kotte Road, Rajagiriya. 2. R. A. N. J. Ranaweera, Excise Inspector Excise and Narcotic Unit Excise Department No. 838/2/1, Thalagaha Junction, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 3. G. D. Pushpakumara, Excise Corporal No. 725, Excise and Narcotic Unit, Excise Department No. 838/2/1, Thalagaha Junction, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 4. W. M. D. Indika, Excise Corporal No. 826, Excise and Narcotic Unit, Excise Department No. 838/2/1, Thalagaha Junction, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 5. M. D. Gamage, Excise Corporal No. 971, Excise and Narcotic Unit, Excise Department No. 838/2/1, Thalagaha Junction, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 6. A. P. Iresh Kavinda, Excise Guard No.1118, Excise and Narcotic Unit, Excise Department No. 838/2/1, Thalagaha Junction, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 7. J. A. G. M. Madushanka, Excise Guard No. 1082, Excise and Narcotic Unit, Excise Department No. 838/2/1, Thalagaha Junction, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 8. D. M. I. Disanayake Excise Guard No. 1079, Excise and Narcotic Unit, Excise Department No. 838/2/1, Thalagaha Junction, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 9. P.T.C. Ekanayake Excise Guard No. 1029, Excise and Narcotic Unit, Excise Department No. 838/2/1, Thalagaha Junction, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 10. Dananjaya Officer, Excise and Narcotic Unit, Excise Department No. 838/2/1, Thalagaha Junction, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 11. Sugath Excise Department No. 838/2/1, Thalagaha Junction, Gothatuwa, Angoda. 12. J. I. S. Perera alias Rajagiriye Sujee Higgahawatta Road, Gothatuwa. 13. C. D. Wickramarathne, Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 14.Hon. Tiran Alles Minister of Public Security, Ministry of Public Security, 14th floor, Suhurupaya Battaramulla. 15.Honourable Attorney General, Department of the Attorney General, Colombo 12. Respondents
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
11 Mar 2026 SC/FR/372/2020
Nanayakkara Godakande Achala Shanika Senevirathna No.215, Kanaththa Road, Palanwaththa, Pannipitiya. Petitioner Vs. 1. Nishantha Zoysa Former Director of the Criminal Investigation Department, C/o Director, Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo 01. 1A. Kavindha Piyasena, Former Director of the Criminal Investigation Department, C/o Director, Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo 01. 1B. M.W. Imesha Muthumali Senior Superintendent of Police, Directress, Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo 01. 2. W.D.P. Senarathna, Former Officer-in-Charge of the Keselwattha Police Station, C/o Officer-in-Charge, Police Station Keselwattha. 2A. Ranjith Bamunusingha, Former Officer-in-Charge of the Keselwattha Police Station, C/o Officer-in-Charge, Police Station Keselwattha. 2B. Sujith Priyantha, Chief Inspector of Police, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Keselwaththa. 3. R. L. Sanath Ranjith, Former Officer-in-Charge of the Piliyandala Police Station, C/o Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Piliyandala. 3A. Dinesh Atharangama, Chief Inspector of Police, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Keselwaththa. 4. C. D. Wickramarathne, Former Inspector-General of Police, C/o Inspector-General of Police (Acting), Department of Police, Colombo 01. 4A. Priyantha Weerasuriya, Inspector-General of Police (Acting), Department of Police, Colombo 01. 5. Suhada Gamlath PC, Chairman, National Authority for the Protection of Victims of Crimes and Witnesses, No. 428 / 11 A, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Baththaramulla. 6. Sanjaya Irasingha, Former Director of the Victims of Crime and Witnesses Assistance Division, C/o Director, Victims of Crime and Witnesses Assistance Division, No. 145, Main Street, Baththaramulla. 6A. W. V. Ginige, Former Director of the Victims of Crime and Witnesses Assistance Division, C/o Director, Victims of Crime and Witnesses Assistance Division, No. 145, Main Street, Baththaramulla. 6B. L. Rohana Gamage, Senior Superintendent of Police, Director, Victims of Crime and Witnesses Assistance Division, No.145, Main Street, Baththaramulla. 7. Kamal Gunaratne, Former Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, C/o Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Defence Headquarters Complex, Jayewardenepura, Kotte. 7A. Sampath Thuyacontha Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Defence Headquarters Complex, Jayewardenepura, Kotte. 8. Honourable Attorney General, Department of the Attorney General, Colombo 12. Respondents Nanayakkara Godakande Achala Shanika Senevirathna No.215, Kanaththa Road, Palanwaththa, Pannipitiya. Petitioner Vs. 1. Nishantha Zoysa Former Director of the Criminal Investigation Department, C/o Director, Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo 01. 1A. Kavindha Piyasena, Former Director of the Criminal Investigation Department, C/o Director, Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo 01. 1B. M.W. Imesha Muthumali Senior Superintendent of Police, Directress, Criminal Investigation Department, Colombo 01. 2. W.D.P. Senarathna, Former Officer-in-Charge of the Keselwattha Police Station, C/o Officer-in-Charge, Police Station Keselwattha. 2A. Ranjith Bamunusingha, Former Officer-in-Charge of the Keselwattha Police Station, C/o Officer-in-Charge, Police Station Keselwattha. 2B. Sujith Priyantha, Chief Inspector of Police, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Keselwaththa. 3. R. L. Sanath Ranjith, Former Officer-in-Charge of the Piliyandala Police Station, C/o Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Piliyandala. 3A. Dinesh Atharangama, Chief Inspector of Police, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Keselwaththa. 4. C. D. Wickramarathne, Former Inspector-General of Police, C/o Inspector-General of Police (Acting), Department of Police, Colombo 01. 4A. Priyantha Weerasuriya, Inspector-General of Police (Acting), Department of Police, Colombo 01. 5. Suhada Gamlath PC, Chairman, National Authority for the Protection of Victims of Crimes and Witnesses, No. 428 / 11 A, Denzil Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Baththaramulla. 6. Sanjaya Irasingha, Former Director of the Victims of Crime and Witnesses Assistance Division, C/o Director, Victims of Crime and Witnesses Assistance Division, No. 145, Main Street, Baththaramulla. 6A. W. V. Ginige, Former Director of the Victims of Crime and Witnesses Assistance Division, C/o Director, Victims of Crime and Witnesses Assistance Division, No. 145, Main Street, Baththaramulla. 6B. L. Rohana Gamage, Senior Superintendent of Police, Director, Victims of Crime and Witnesses Assistance Division, No.145, Main Street, Baththaramulla. 7. Kamal Gunaratne, Former Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, C/o Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Defence Headquarters Complex, Jayewardenepura, Kotte. 7A. Sampath Thuyacontha Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Defence Headquarters Complex, Jayewardenepura, Kotte. 8. Honourable Attorney General, Department of the Attorney General, Colombo 12. Respondents
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
11 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/122/2024
Mudugamuwa Hewage Mendis Appuhamy, No.36/10, P.B. Alwis Perera Mawatha, Katubedda, Moratuwa Deceased Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Mudugamu Hewage Ramyalatha No.36/10, P.B.Alwis Perera Mawatha, Katubedda, Moratuwa Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Bowalgaharalalage Sirithilaka Kumari, No.95, St. Anthony\'s Road, Kadalana, Moratuwa. New Address No.11/11A, Niwahal Place, Koralawella, Moratuwa. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent Mudugamuwa Hewage Mendis Appuhamy, No.36/10, P.B. Alwis Perera Mawatha, Katubedda, Moratuwa Deceased Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Mudugamu Hewage Ramyalatha No.36/10, P.B.Alwis Perera Mawatha, Katubedda, Moratuwa Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Bowalgaharalalage Sirithilaka Kumari, No.95, St. Anthony\'s Road, Kadalana, Moratuwa. New Address No.11/11A, Niwahal Place, Koralawella, Moratuwa. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
11 Mar 2026 SC/FR/158/2012
1. Kuruppu Mullage Priyantha, No. 40, MDH Pura, Thalangama South, PelawaƩ a, BaƩ aramulla. 2. Nimal Amarasiri Meegammana, No. 64, Heennakade Owilikandha, Matale. 3. Habarakadage Chandrapala, No. 337/A2, MaƟ Imbuwa, AngampiƟ ya, Padukka. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Sri Lanka Transport Board 2. Chairman, Sri Lanka Transport Board 3. D.A.P. Senevirathne Chief ExecuƟ ve Officer 3A. R.V.D. Piyathilake 3B. P.D. Balasooriya 3C. Sagara H. Waduge 3D. Mahesh Karunathilake 3 – 3D Respondents - Chief ExecuƟ ve Officer, Sri Lanka Transport Board THE CAPTION GOES ON TILL PAGE 26 – I HAVE NOT ANNXED THOSE PAGES TO THE DRAFT 2 4. L.A. Wimalarathne, Vice Chairman, Director 4A. Bandula Dias, Vice Chairman, Director 4B. Ramal Siriwardhane, Chairman/Director 4C. K.D. Karunaratne 5. S.B. UdawaƩ e 5A. B.G.B.P. Jayasiri 5B. N.W. Nathavitharana 5C. Ruwan R. Thilakarathne 6. Ivan Tissera 6A. H.H. Erantha Priya Sudesh De Silva 6B. D.C.W. Hapugoda 6C. P.H.A.S. Wijerathne 7. Prasanna Kumara de Silva 7A. J.M. Thilakarathne Banda 7B. A.D. Jayasekara 7C. J.M. Thilakarathne Banda 7D. N. Nathavitharana 8. Nihal Jayathilake 8A. M. Nathawitharana 8B. H.M.A. Piyasudes De Silva 8C. B.G.B.P. Jayasiri 8D. A.P.L.P. Samarasinghe 8E. Buddhika Iddamalgoda 8F. Nurajith Singh 4 th to 8F Respondents all Directors of the Sri Lanka Transport Board. 9. Thisani Thenabadu 9A. A.K.C. Dhammika Silochana 9B. A.K.T.D. Thilochana 9C. O.W.D. Nimasha Ayanthi 9 th – 9C Respondents are Secretary of the Sri Lanka Transport Board 10. U.R. Perera 10A. Premalal Peiris 10B. H.G.Samantha Kumara 10C. Champika Malkanthi 10th – 10C Respondents are Chief Human Resources Manager, Sri Lanka Transport Board. 11. M.S.S. Vaidyathilake, Chief Finance Manager 11A. Sumith Hettiarachchi, Chief Finance Manager (Acting) 11B. Chandana Kumara Herath, Chief Human Resources Manager 12. N.K.C. Wijayasiri Silva, Manager, Approved Provident Fund 12A. Bandula De Silva, 3 Manager, Approved Provident Fund 13. S.M. Sunila Malkanthi, AccounƟ ng Officer/Treasurer of the Approved Provident Fund 14. B.A.B. Jayasinghe, Secretary of the Approved Provident Fund 15. Nimal Abeysiri 16. H.M. Chandrasiri Perera 17. D. Lakshman Nanayakkara 18. K.P. Kithsiri 19. S. Ranasinghe 20. H.K. Dissanayake 9 th to 20th Respondents all members of the CommiƩ ee of Management of the Approved Provident Fund 1 st – 20th Respondents at No. 200, Kirula Road, Colombo 5. 21. Hon. Prime Minister D.M. Jayaratne, Minister of Buddhasasana and Religious Affairs 22. Hon. Ratnasiri Wickremanayake, Minister (Senior) for Good Governance And Infrastructure 23. Hon. D.E.W. Gunasekara, Minister (Senior) for Human Resources 24. Hon. Athauda Seneviratne, Minister (Senior) for Rural Affairs 25. Hon. P. Dayaratne, Minister (Senior) for Food Security 26. Hon. A.H.M. Fowzie, Minister (Senior) for Urban Affairs 27. Hon. Milroy Fernando, Minister (Senior) for Social Servies 4 28. Hon. S.B. Navinne, Minister (Senior) for Consumer Welfare 29. Hon. Piyasena Gamage, Minister (Senior) for NaƟ onal Resources 30. Hon. (Prof.) Tissa Vitharana, Minister (Senior) for ScienƟ fic Affairs 31. Hon. Dr. Sarath Amunugama, Minister (Senior) for InternaƟ onal Monetary CorporaƟ on. 22nd to 31st Respondents at Secretariat for Senior Ministers, No. 356B, (Carlwil Place), Galle Road, Colombo 3. 32. Hon. Nimal Siripala de Silva, Minister of IrrigaƟ on and Water Resources Management 33. Hon. Maithripala Sirisena, Minister of Health 34. Hon. A.D. Susil Premajayantha, Minister of Petroleum Industries 35. Hon. Arumugam Thondaman, Minister of Livestock and Rural Community Development 36. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena, Minister of Water Supply and Drainage 37. Hon. Douglas Devananda, Minister of TradiƟ onal Industries and Small Enterprise Development 38. Hon. A.L.M. Athaullah, Minister of Local Government and Provincial Councils 39. Hon. Abdul Rishad Bathiudeen, 5 Minister of Industry and Commerce 40. Hon. Patali Champika Ranawaka, Minister of Power and Energy 41. Hon. Wimal Weerawansa, Minister of ConstrucƟ on, Engineering Services, Housing and Common AmeniƟ es 42. Hon. Rauff Hakeem, Minister of JusƟ ce 43. Hon. Basil Rajapaksa, Minister of Economic Development 44. Hon. Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Minister of NaƟ onal Languages and Social IntegraƟ on 45. Hon. S.B. Dissanayake, Minister of Higher EducaƟ on 46. Hon. (Prof.) G.L. Peiris, Minister of External Affairs 47. Hon. W.D.J. Seneviratna, Minister of Public AdministraƟ on and Home Affairs 48. Hon. Mrs. Sumedha G. Jayasena, Minister of Parliamentary Affairs 49. Hon. Jeevan Kumaranatunga, Minister of Postal Services 50. Hon. Mrs. Pavithra Wanniarachchi, Minister of Technology and Research 51. Hon. Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Minister of Environment 52. Hon. Tissa Karalliyadda, Minister of Child Development and Women’s Affairs 6 53. Hon. Gamini Lokuge, Minister of Labour And Labour RelaƟ ons 54. Hon. Bandula Gunawardena, Minister of Education 55. Hon. Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of PlantaƟ on Industries 56. Hon. (Dr.) Rajitha Senaratne, Minister of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Development 57. Hon. Janaka Bandara Tennakoon, Minister of Lands and Land Development 58. Hon. Felix Perera, Minister of Social Services 59. Hon. R.M.C.B. Ratnayake, Minister of Private Transport Services 60. Hon. Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, Minister of Agriculture 61. Hon. (Dr) Keheliya Rambukwella, Minister of Mass Media and InformaƟ on 62. Hon. Kumara Welgama, Minister of Transport 63. Hon. Dallus Alahapperuma, Minister of Youth Affairs & Skills Development 64. Hon. Johnston Fernando, Minister of Co-operaƟ ve and Internal Trade 65. Hon. Chandrasiri Gajadeera, Minister of RehabilitaƟ on and Prison Reforms 66. Hon. Salinda Dissanayake, Minister of Indigenous Medicine, 67. Hon. Reginald Cooray, Minister of Minor Export Crop PromoƟ on 7 68. Hon. Dilan Perera, Minister of Foreign Employment PromoƟ on & Welfare 69. Hon. Jagath Pushpakumara, Minister of Coconut Development & Janata Estate Development 70. Hon. T.B. Ekanayake, Minister of Culture & AestheƟ c Affairs 71. Hon. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Disaster Management 72. Hon. S.M. Chandrasena, Minister of Agrarian Services & Wildlife 73. Hon. M.H. Gunarathne Weerakoon, Minister of ReseƩ lement 74. Hon. (Dr.) Mervyn Silva, Minister of Public RelaƟ ons & Public Affairs 75. Hon. Mahindananda Aluthgamage, Minister of Sports 76. Hon. Dayashritha Tissera, Minister of State Resources and Enterprise Development 77. Hon. Ranjith SiyambalapiƟ ya, Minister of TelecommunicaƟ on & InformaƟ on, Technology 78. Hon. (Dr.) Jagath Balasooriya, Minister of NaƟ onal Heritage 79. Hon. Lakshman Senevirathne, Minister of ProducƟ vity PromoƟ on 80. Hon. Naveen Dissanayake, Minister of Public Management Reforms 81. Hon. Priyankara Jayaratne, 8 9 Minister of Civil AviaƟ on 82. Mr. Sumith Abeysinghe 82A. Mr. A. Amarasekara 82B. Mr. W.M.D.J. Fernando, Secretary to the Cabinet of Ministers 32nd - 82nd Respondents at Office of the Cabinet of Ministers, Republic Square, Sir Baron JayaƟ lleke Mawatha, Colombo 01. 83. Secretary, Ministry of Transport 83A. Secretary, Ministry of Internal Transport 84. Commissioner General of Labour, Ministry of Labour and Labour RelaƟ ons 85. Dr. P.B. Jayasundera 85A. Dr. R.H.S. Samaratunga 85B. S.R. Attygalle 85th – 85B Respondents are Secretary to the Treasury and Secretary of Ministry of Finance & Planning, Ministry of Finance & Planning, the Secretariat Building, Colombo 1. 86. Hon. AƩ orney General, Colombo 12 RESPONDENTS 1. Hon. Ranil Wickremasinghe, Minister of Policy Planning, Economic Affairs, Child, Youth and Cultural Affairs 2. Hon. Ravi Karunanayake, Minister of Finance 3. Hon Mangala Samaraweera, Minister of Foreign Affairs 4. Hon. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, Minister of Justice Minister of Buddha Sasana 5. Hon. D. M. Swaminathan, Minister of Rehabilitation, Resettlement, Reconstruction and Hindu Affairs 6. Hon. John Amaratunga Minister of Tourism and Christian Affairs 7. Hon. Gamini Jayawickrama Perera, Minister of Sustainable Development and Wildlife 8. Hon. Lakshman Kiriella, Minister of Universities, Education and Highways 9. Hon. Tilak Marapana, Minister of Law & Order and Prison Reforms 10. Hon. Rajitha Senaratne, Minister of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine 11. Hon. Vajira Abeywardena, Minister of Internal Affairs 12. Hon. S. B. Nawinne, Minister of Internal Affairs Cultural Affairs and Wayamba Development 13. Hon. P. Harrison, Minister of Rural Economic Affairs 14. Hon. R. M. Ranjith Madduma Bandara, Minister of Public Administration and Management 15. Hon. Gayantha Karunathilaka, 10 Minister of Media 16. Hon. Sajith Premadasa, Minister of Housing and Development 17. Hon. Arjuna Ranatunga, Minister of Ports and Naval Affairs 18. Hon. Chandrani Bandara Jayasinghe, Minister of Women and Child Affairs 19. Hon. Thalatha Atukorale, Minister of Foreign Employment 20. Hon. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Minister of Education 21. Hon. Sagala Ratnayaka, Minister of Southern Development 22. Hon. Harin Fernando, Minister of Telecommunications and Digital Infrastructure 23. Hon. Daya Gamage, Minister of Primary Industries 24. Hon. Malik Samarawickrama, Minister of Development Strategy and International Trade 25. Hon. Kabir Hashim, Minister of Public Enterprise Development 26. Hon. Navin Dissanayake, Minister of Plantation Industries 27. Hon. M. H. A. Haleem, Minister of Postal and Muslim Affairs 28. Hon. M. K. A. D. S. Gunawardana, Minister of Lands 28(a) Hon. John Amarathunga, Minister of Lands 11 29. Hon. Rauff Hakeem, Minister of City Planning and Water Supply 30. Hon. Champika Ranawaka, Minister of Megapolis and Western Development 31. Hon. Risad Badhiutheen, Minister of Industry and Commerce 32. Hon. Mano Ganesan, Minister of National Dialogue 33. Hon. Palani Digambaran, Minister of Estate Infrastructure Development 34. Hon. Nimal Siripala de Silva, Minister of Transport 35. Hon. S. B. Dissanayake, Minister of Social Empowering and Welfare 36. Hon. John Seneviratne, Minister of Labour and Trade Union Relations 37. Hon. Faiszer Musthapha, Minister of Local Government 38. Hon. Anura Priyadharshana Yapa, Minister of Disaster Management 39. Hon. Vijith Vijayamuni Soysa, Minister of Irrigation and Water Management 40. Hon. Susil Premajayanth, Minister of Technology, Technology Education and Employment 41. Hon. Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of Skills Development and Vocational Training 12 13 42. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 43. Hon. Ranjith Siyambalapitiya, Minister of Power and Renewable Energy 44. Hon. Duminda Dissanayake, Minister of Agriculture 45. Hon. Chandima Weerakkody, Minister of Petroleum Resources Development 46. Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Minister of Sports C/O Secretary to the Cabinet of the Ministers Republic Square, D.B. Jayathilake Mawatha, Colombo 01 47. Hon. Sarath Fonseka, Minister of Regional Development, ADDED RESPONDENTS 1. Hon. Maithripala Sirisena, Minister of NaƟ onal IntegraƟ on & ReconciliaƟ on, Defence and Mahaweli Development & Environment 2. Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe, Minister of NaƟ onal Policies and Economic Affairs 3. Hon. John Amaratunga, Minister of Tourism Development and ChrisƟ an Religious Affairs 4. Hon. Gamini Jayawickrama Perera, Minister of Sustainable Development and Wildlife, Buddhasashana 5. Hon. Nimal Siripala De Silva, Minister of Transport and Civil AviaƟ on 14 6. Hon. Thilak Marapana, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Development Assignments 7. Hon. S.B. Dissanayake, Minister of Social Empowerment, Welfare and Kandyan Heritage 8. Hon. W.D.J. Seneviratne, Minister of Labour, Trade Union RelaƟ ons and Sabaragamu Development 9. Hon. Lakshman Kiriella, Minister of Higher EducaƟ on and Highways 10. Hon. (Dr.) Sarath Amunugama, Minister of Special Assignments 11. Hon. Rauff Hakeem, Minister of City Planning and Water Supply 12. Hon. Anura Priyadharshana Yapa, Minister of Disaster Management 13. Hon. A.D. Susil Premajayantha, Minister of Science Technology and Research 14. Hon. (Dr.) Rajitha Senaratne, Minister of Health, NutriƟ on and Indigenous Medicine 15. Hon. Mangala Samaraweera, Minister of Finance and Mass Media 16. Hon. Chandima Weerakkodi Minister of Skills Development and VocaƟ onal Training 17. Hon. Vajira Abeywardana, Minister of Home Affairs 18. Hon. S.B. Navinne, Minister of Internal Affairs, Wayamba Development and Cultural Affairs 19. Hon. Rishad Bathiudeen, Minister of Industry and Commerce 20. Hon. Patali Champika Ranawaka, Minister of Megapolis and Western Development 21. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Fisheries and AquaƟ c Resources Development 22. Hon. Navin Dissanayake, Minister of PlantaƟ on Industries 23. Hon. Ranjith SiyambalapiƟ ya, Minister of Power and Renewable Energy 24. Hon. Duminda Dissanayake, Minister of Agriculture 25. Hon. Vijith Vijayamuni Zoysa, Minister of IrrigaƟ on and Water Resources Management 26. Hon. (Mrs.) Thalatha Atukorale, Minister of JusƟ ce and Foreign Employment 27. Hon. P. Harrison, Minister of Rural Economy 28. Hon. Kabir Hashim, Minister of Public Enterprise Development 29. Hon. Ranjith Madduma Bandara, Minister of Public AdministraƟ on and Management 30. Hon. Sajith Premadasa, Minister of Housing and ConstrucƟ on 31. Hon. Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of Ports and Shipping 32. Hon. Gayantha Karunathilaka, Ministry of Lands and Parliamentary Reforms 15 33. Hon. U. Palany Thigambaram, Minister of Hill Country New Villages, Infrastructure and Community Development 34. Hon. (Mrs.) Chandrani Bandara, Minister of Women and Child Affairs 35. Hon. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Minister of EducaƟ on 36. Hon. M.H.A. Haleem, Minister of Posts, Postal Services and Muslim Religious Affairs 37. Hon. Faiszer Musthapha, Minister of Provincial Counsel and Local Government 38. Hon. D.M. Swaminathan, Minister of Provincial Counsel and Local Government 39. Hon. Arjuna Ranathunga, Minister of Petroleum Resources Development 40. Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Minister of Sports 41. Hon. Sagala Ratnayaka, Minister of Law & Order and Southern Development 42. Hon. Harin Fernando, Minister of TelecommunicaƟ on and Digital Infrastructure 43. Hon. Mano Ganesan, Minister of NaƟ onal Co-existence Dialogue and Official Languages 44. Hon. Daya Gamage, Minister of Primary Industries 45. Hon. Malik Samarawickrama, 16 Minister of Development Strategies and InternaƟ onal Trade 46. Hon. Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, Minister of Regional Development ADDED RESPONDENTS COMPRISING OF THE CABINET MINISTERS AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED 01. Hon. Maithripala Sirisena, Minister of Defence and Mahaweli Development & Environment 02. Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe, Minister of NaƟ onal Policies and Economic Affairs 03. Hon. John Amaratunga, Minister of Tourism Development and ChrisƟ an Religious Affairs 04. Hon. Gamini Jayawickrama Perera, Minister of Buddhasashana 05. Hon. Nimal Siripala De Silva, Minister of Transport and Civil AviaƟ on 06. Hon. Mangala Samaraweera, Minister of Finance and Mass Media 07. Hon. Lakshman Kiriella, Minister of Public Enterprise and Kandy City Development 08. Hon. (Dr.) Sarath Amunugama, Minister of Science, Technology Research, Skills Developments and VocaƟ onal Training and Kandyan Heritage 09. Hon. Rauff Hakeem, Minister of City Planning and Water Supply 10. Hon. Thilak Marapana, Minister of Foreign Affairs 17 11. Hon. (Dr.) Rajitha Senaratne, Minister of Health, NutriƟ on and Indigenous Medicine 12. Hon.Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of Ports and Shipping 13. Hon. Vajira Abeywardana, Minister of Home Affairs 14. Hon. S.B. Navinne, Minister of Internal Affairs, and Wayamba Development 15. Hon. Rishad Bathiudeen, Minister of Industry and Commerce 16. Hon. Patali Champika Ranawaka, Minister of Megapolis and Western Development 17. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Agriculture 18. Hon. Navin Dissanayake, Minister of PlantaƟ on Industries 19. Hon. Ranjith SiyambalapiƟ ya, Minister of Power and Renewable Energy 20. Hon. Duminda Dissanayake, Minister of IrrigaƟ on and Water Resources and Disaster Management 21. Hon. Vijith Vijayamuni Zoysa, Minister of Fisheries & AquaƟ c Resources Development and Rural Economic Affairs 22. Hon. Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, Minister of Higher educaƟ on and Cultural Affairs, 23. Hon. P. Harrison, Minister of Social Empowerment 18 24. Hon. Kabir Hashim, Minister of Highways and Road Development 25. Hon. Ranjith Madduma Bandara, Minister of Public AdministraƟ on and Management and Law & Order 26. Hon. Gayantha Karunathilaka, Ministry of Lands and Parliamentary Reforms 27. Hon. Sajith Premadasa, Minister of Housing and ConstrucƟ on 28. Hon. Arjuna Ranathung,a Minister of Petroleum Resources Development 29. Hon. U. Palany Thigambaram, Minister of Hill Country New Villages, Infrastructure and Community Development 30. Hon. (Mrs.) Chandrani Bandara, Minister of Women and Child Affairs 31. Hon. (Mrs.) Thalatha Atukorale, Minister of JusƟ ce and Prison Reforms 32. Hon. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Minister of EducaƟ on 33. Hon. M.H.A. Haleem, Minister of Posts, Postal Services and Muslim Religious Affairs 34. Hon. Faiszer Musthapha, Minister of Provincial Councill, Local Government and Sports 35. Hon. D.M. Swaminathan, Minister of Re seƩ lement, RehabilitaƟ on, Northern Development and Hindu Religious Affairs 36. Hon. Sagala Ratnayaka, Minister of Youth Affairs, Project Management and Southern Development 19 20 37. Hon. Harin Fernando, Minister of TelecommunicaƟ on, Digital Infrastructure and Foreign Employment 38. Hon. Mano Ganesan, Minister of NaƟ onal IntegraƟ on, ReconciliaƟ on and Official Languages 39. Hon. Daya Gamage, Minister of Social, Welfare and Primary Industries 40. Hon. Malik Samarawickrama, Minister of Development Strategies and InternaƟ onal Trade 41. Hon. Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, Minister of Sustainable Development, Wildlife and Regional Development 42. Hon. Ravindra Samaraweera, Minister of Labor and Trade Union Relations ADDED RESPONDENTS COMPRISING OF THE CABINET MINISTERS AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED 1. Honourable Ranil Wickremasinghe, Prime Minister Minister of NaƟ onal Policies, Economic Affairs, ReseƩ lement & RehabilitaƟ on, Northern Province Development, VocaƟ onal Training & Skills Development and Youth Affairs 2. Honourable John Amarathunga, Minister of Tourism Development, Wildlife and ChrisƟ an Religious Affairs, 3. Honourable Gamini Jayawickrema Perera, Minister of Buddhasasana & Wayamba Development, 4. Honourable Mangala Samaraweera, Minister of Finance and Mass Media, 21 5. Honourable Lakshman Kiriella, Minister of Public Enterprise, Kandyan Heritage and Kandy Development, 6. Honourable Rauff Hakeem, Minister of City Planning, Water Supply and Higher EducaƟ on 7. Honourable Thilak Marapana, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Republic Building, 8. Honourable (Dr) Rajitha Senaratne, Minister of Health, NutriƟ on and Indigenous Medicine, 9. Honourable Ravi Karunanayake, Minister of Power, Energy and Business Development, 10. Honourable Vajira Abeywardena, Minister of Internal & Home Affairs and Provincial Council & Local Government 11. Honourable Rishad Bathiudeen, Minister of Industry & Commerce, ReseƩ lement of Protracted Displaced Persons and Co-OperaƟ ve Development, 12. Honourable Patali Champika Ranawaka, Minister of Megapolis and Western Development, 13. Honourable Navin Dissanayake, Minister of PlantaƟ on Industries, 14. Honourable P. Harison, Minister of Agriculture, Rural Economic Affairs, Livestock Development, IrrigaƟ on and Fisheries & AquaƟ c Resources Development 15. Honourable Kabir Hashim, Minister of Highways & Road Development and Petroleum Resources Development, 16. Honourable Ranjith Madduma Bandara, Minister of Public AdministraƟ on &Disaster Management, 17. Honourable Gayantha Karunathilaka, Minister of Lands and Parliamentary Reforms, 18. Honourable Sajith Premadasa, Minister of Housing, ConstrucƟ on and Cultural Affairs, 19. Honourable Arjuna Ranatunga, Minister of Transport and Civil AviaƟ on, 20. Honourable U. Palani Digambaram, Minister of Hill Country New Villages, Infrastructure and Community Development, 21. Honourable (Mrs.) Chandrani Bandara, Minister of Women & Child Affairs and Dry Zone Development, 22. Honourable (Mrs.) Thalatha Atukorale, Minister of JusƟ ce & Prison Reforms, 23. Honourable Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Minister of EducaƟ on, 24. Honourable M.H.A. Haleem, Minister of Postal Services and Muslim Religious Affairs, 25. Honourable Sagala Ratnayake, Minister of Ports & Shipping and Southern Development, 26. Honourable Harin Fernando, Minister of TelecommunicaƟ on, Foreign Employment and Sports 27. Honourable Mano Ganesan, Minister of NaƟ onal IntegraƟ on, Official Languages, Social Progress and Hindu Religious Affairs 22 23 28. Honourable Daya Gamage, Minister of Labour, Trade Union RelaƟ ons and Social Empowerment, 29. Honourable Malik Samarawickrema, Minister of Development Strategies and InternaƟ onal Trade, ADDED RESPONDENTS COMPRISING OF THE CABINET MINISTERS AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED 1. Hon. Mahinda Rajapakse, Minister of Finance, Economy and Policy Development, Minister of Buddhasasana, Cultural and Religious Affairs, Minister of Urban Development, Water 2. Hon. Nimal Siripala De Silva, Minister of JusƟ ce, Human Right & Legal Reforms 3. Hon. Arumugan Thondaman, Minister of Community Empowerment and Estate Infrastructure Development 4. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena, Minister of Foreign RelaƟ ons, Skills Development, Employment and Labour RelaƟ ons 5. Hon. Douglas Devananda, Minister of Fisheries & AquaƟ c Resources 6. Hon. (Mrs.) Pavithra Devi Wanniarachchi, Minister of Women & Child Affairs and Social Security, Healthcare and Indigenous Medical Service 7. Hon. Bandula Gunawardena, Minister of InformaƟ on and CommunicaƟ on Technology, Higher EducaƟ on, Technology and InnovaƟ on 24 8. Hon. Janaka Bandara Tennakoon, Minister of Public AdministraƟ on, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils & Local Government 9. Hon. Chamal Rajapakse, Minister of Mahaweli, Agriculture, IrrigaƟ on and Rural Development, Internal Trade, Food Security and Consumer Welfare 10. Hon. Dullas Alahapperuma, Minister of EducaƟ on, Sport & Youth Affairs 11. Hon. Johnston Fernando, Minister of Roads and Highways, Ports & Shipping 12. Hon. Wimal Weerawansa, Minister of Small & Medium Business and Enterprise Development, Industries and Supply Chain Management 13. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Passenger Transport Management Minister of Power & Energy 14. Hon. S.M.Chandrasena, Minister of Environment and Wildlife Resources, Lands & Land Development 15. Hon. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of PlantaƟ on Industries and Export Agriculture 16. Hon. Prasanna Ranatunga, Minister of Industrial Export and Investment PromoƟ on, Tourism and Civil AviaƟ on ADDED RESPONDENTS COMPRISING OF THE CABINET MINISTERS AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED 25 1. Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa Minister of Finance Minster of Buddha Sasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs 2. Hon. Nimal Siripala De Silva, Minister of Labour, 3. Hon. Prof. G.L Peiris, Minister of Education 4. Hon. Pavithradevi Wanniarachchi, Minister of Health 5. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardana, Minister of Foreign Relations 6. Hon. Douglas Devananda, Minister of Fisheries 7. Hon. Gamini Lokuge, Minister of Transport 8. Hon. Bandula Gunawardana, Minister of Trade 9. Hon. R.M.C.B. Rathnayake, Minister of Wildlife and Forest Conservation 10. Hon. Janaka Bandara Tennakoon, Minister of Public Services, Provincial Councils and Local Government 11. Hon. Keheliya Rambukwella, Rambukwella Minister of Mass Media 12. Hon. Chamal Rajapaksa, Minister of Irrigation 13. Hon. Dullas Alahapperuma, Minister of Power 14. Hon. Johnston Fernando, Minister of Highways 15. Hon. Wimal Weerawansa, Minister of Industries 16. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Environment 17. Hon. S.M. Chandrasena, Minister of Land 18. Hon. Mahindananda Aluthgamage, Minister of Agriculture 19. Hon. Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Minister of Water Supply 20. Hon. Udaya Prabhath Gammanpila, Minister of Energy 21. Hon. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Plantation 22. Hon. Prasanna Ranatunga, Minister of Tourism 23. Hon. Rohitha Abeygunawardena, Minister of Ports and Shipping 24. Hon. Namal Rajapaksa, Minister of Youth and Sports Affairs 25. Hon. M.U.M. Ali Sabry PC, Minister of Justice ADDED RESPONDENTS COMPRISING OF THE CABINET MINISTERS AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED 01. Hon.Basil Rajapaksa, Minister of Finance 02. Hon.Sarath Weerasekara Minister of Public Security ADDED RESPONDENTS COMPRISING OF THE CABINET MINISTERS AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED 1. Kuruppu Mullage Priyantha, No. 40, MDH Pura, Thalangama South, PelawaƩ a, BaƩ aramulla. 2. Nimal Amarasiri Meegammana, No. 64, Heennakade Owilikandha, Matale. 3. Habarakadage Chandrapala, No. 337/A2, MaƟ Imbuwa, AngampiƟ ya, Padukka. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Sri Lanka Transport Board 2. Chairman, Sri Lanka Transport Board 3. D.A.P. Senevirathne Chief ExecuƟ ve Officer 3A. R.V.D. Piyathilake 3B. P.D. Balasooriya 3C. Sagara H. Waduge 3D. Mahesh Karunathilake 3 – 3D Respondents - Chief ExecuƟ ve Officer, Sri Lanka Transport Board THE CAPTION GOES ON TILL PAGE 26 – I HAVE NOT ANNXED THOSE PAGES TO THE DRAFT 2 4. L.A. Wimalarathne, Vice Chairman, Director 4A. Bandula Dias, Vice Chairman, Director 4B. Ramal Siriwardhane, Chairman/Director 4C. K.D. Karunaratne 5. S.B. UdawaƩ e 5A. B.G.B.P. Jayasiri 5B. N.W. Nathavitharana 5C. Ruwan R. Thilakarathne 6. Ivan Tissera 6A. H.H. Erantha Priya Sudesh De Silva 6B. D.C.W. Hapugoda 6C. P.H.A.S. Wijerathne 7. Prasanna Kumara de Silva 7A. J.M. Thilakarathne Banda 7B. A.D. Jayasekara 7C. J.M. Thilakarathne Banda 7D. N. Nathavitharana 8. Nihal Jayathilake 8A. M. Nathawitharana 8B. H.M.A. Piyasudes De Silva 8C. B.G.B.P. Jayasiri 8D. A.P.L.P. Samarasinghe 8E. Buddhika Iddamalgoda 8F. Nurajith Singh 4 th to 8F Respondents all Directors of the Sri Lanka Transport Board. 9. Thisani Thenabadu 9A. A.K.C. Dhammika Silochana 9B. A.K.T.D. Thilochana 9C. O.W.D. Nimasha Ayanthi 9 th – 9C Respondents are Secretary of the Sri Lanka Transport Board 10. U.R. Perera 10A. Premalal Peiris 10B. H.G.Samantha Kumara 10C. Champika Malkanthi 10th – 10C Respondents are Chief Human Resources Manager, Sri Lanka Transport Board. 11. M.S.S. Vaidyathilake, Chief Finance Manager 11A. Sumith Hettiarachchi, Chief Finance Manager (Acting) 11B. Chandana Kumara Herath, Chief Human Resources Manager 12. N.K.C. Wijayasiri Silva, Manager, Approved Provident Fund 12A. Bandula De Silva, 3 Manager, Approved Provident Fund 13. S.M. Sunila Malkanthi, AccounƟ ng Officer/Treasurer of the Approved Provident Fund 14. B.A.B. Jayasinghe, Secretary of the Approved Provident Fund 15. Nimal Abeysiri 16. H.M. Chandrasiri Perera 17. D. Lakshman Nanayakkara 18. K.P. Kithsiri 19. S. Ranasinghe 20. H.K. Dissanayake 9 th to 20th Respondents all members of the CommiƩ ee of Management of the Approved Provident Fund 1 st – 20th Respondents at No. 200, Kirula Road, Colombo 5. 21. Hon. Prime Minister D.M. Jayaratne, Minister of Buddhasasana and Religious Affairs 22. Hon. Ratnasiri Wickremanayake, Minister (Senior) for Good Governance And Infrastructure 23. Hon. D.E.W. Gunasekara, Minister (Senior) for Human Resources 24. Hon. Athauda Seneviratne, Minister (Senior) for Rural Affairs 25. Hon. P. Dayaratne, Minister (Senior) for Food Security 26. Hon. A.H.M. Fowzie, Minister (Senior) for Urban Affairs 27. Hon. Milroy Fernando, Minister (Senior) for Social Servies 4 28. Hon. S.B. Navinne, Minister (Senior) for Consumer Welfare 29. Hon. Piyasena Gamage, Minister (Senior) for NaƟ onal Resources 30. Hon. (Prof.) Tissa Vitharana, Minister (Senior) for ScienƟ fic Affairs 31. Hon. Dr. Sarath Amunugama, Minister (Senior) for InternaƟ onal Monetary CorporaƟ on. 22nd to 31st Respondents at Secretariat for Senior Ministers, No. 356B, (Carlwil Place), Galle Road, Colombo 3. 32. Hon. Nimal Siripala de Silva, Minister of IrrigaƟ on and Water Resources Management 33. Hon. Maithripala Sirisena, Minister of Health 34. Hon. A.D. Susil Premajayantha, Minister of Petroleum Industries 35. Hon. Arumugam Thondaman, Minister of Livestock and Rural Community Development 36. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena, Minister of Water Supply and Drainage 37. Hon. Douglas Devananda, Minister of TradiƟ onal Industries and Small Enterprise Development 38. Hon. A.L.M. Athaullah, Minister of Local Government and Provincial Councils 39. Hon. Abdul Rishad Bathiudeen, 5 Minister of Industry and Commerce 40. Hon. Patali Champika Ranawaka, Minister of Power and Energy 41. Hon. Wimal Weerawansa, Minister of ConstrucƟ on, Engineering Services, Housing and Common AmeniƟ es 42. Hon. Rauff Hakeem, Minister of JusƟ ce 43. Hon. Basil Rajapaksa, Minister of Economic Development 44. Hon. Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Minister of NaƟ onal Languages and Social IntegraƟ on 45. Hon. S.B. Dissanayake, Minister of Higher EducaƟ on 46. Hon. (Prof.) G.L. Peiris, Minister of External Affairs 47. Hon. W.D.J. Seneviratna, Minister of Public AdministraƟ on and Home Affairs 48. Hon. Mrs. Sumedha G. Jayasena, Minister of Parliamentary Affairs 49. Hon. Jeevan Kumaranatunga, Minister of Postal Services 50. Hon. Mrs. Pavithra Wanniarachchi, Minister of Technology and Research 51. Hon. Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Minister of Environment 52. Hon. Tissa Karalliyadda, Minister of Child Development and Women’s Affairs 6 53. Hon. Gamini Lokuge, Minister of Labour And Labour RelaƟ ons 54. Hon. Bandula Gunawardena, Minister of Education 55. Hon. Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of PlantaƟ on Industries 56. Hon. (Dr.) Rajitha Senaratne, Minister of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Development 57. Hon. Janaka Bandara Tennakoon, Minister of Lands and Land Development 58. Hon. Felix Perera, Minister of Social Services 59. Hon. R.M.C.B. Ratnayake, Minister of Private Transport Services 60. Hon. Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, Minister of Agriculture 61. Hon. (Dr) Keheliya Rambukwella, Minister of Mass Media and InformaƟ on 62. Hon. Kumara Welgama, Minister of Transport 63. Hon. Dallus Alahapperuma, Minister of Youth Affairs & Skills Development 64. Hon. Johnston Fernando, Minister of Co-operaƟ ve and Internal Trade 65. Hon. Chandrasiri Gajadeera, Minister of RehabilitaƟ on and Prison Reforms 66. Hon. Salinda Dissanayake, Minister of Indigenous Medicine, 67. Hon. Reginald Cooray, Minister of Minor Export Crop PromoƟ on 7 68. Hon. Dilan Perera, Minister of Foreign Employment PromoƟ on & Welfare 69. Hon. Jagath Pushpakumara, Minister of Coconut Development & Janata Estate Development 70. Hon. T.B. Ekanayake, Minister of Culture & AestheƟ c Affairs 71. Hon. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Disaster Management 72. Hon. S.M. Chandrasena, Minister of Agrarian Services & Wildlife 73. Hon. M.H. Gunarathne Weerakoon, Minister of ReseƩ lement 74. Hon. (Dr.) Mervyn Silva, Minister of Public RelaƟ ons & Public Affairs 75. Hon. Mahindananda Aluthgamage, Minister of Sports 76. Hon. Dayashritha Tissera, Minister of State Resources and Enterprise Development 77. Hon. Ranjith SiyambalapiƟ ya, Minister of TelecommunicaƟ on & InformaƟ on, Technology 78. Hon. (Dr.) Jagath Balasooriya, Minister of NaƟ onal Heritage 79. Hon. Lakshman Senevirathne, Minister of ProducƟ vity PromoƟ on 80. Hon. Naveen Dissanayake, Minister of Public Management Reforms 81. Hon. Priyankara Jayaratne, 8 9 Minister of Civil AviaƟ on 82. Mr. Sumith Abeysinghe 82A. Mr. A. Amarasekara 82B. Mr. W.M.D.J. Fernando, Secretary to the Cabinet of Ministers 32nd - 82nd Respondents at Office of the Cabinet of Ministers, Republic Square, Sir Baron JayaƟ lleke Mawatha, Colombo 01. 83. Secretary, Ministry of Transport 83A. Secretary, Ministry of Internal Transport 84. Commissioner General of Labour, Ministry of Labour and Labour RelaƟ ons 85. Dr. P.B. Jayasundera 85A. Dr. R.H.S. Samaratunga 85B. S.R. Attygalle 85th – 85B Respondents are Secretary to the Treasury and Secretary of Ministry of Finance & Planning, Ministry of Finance & Planning, the Secretariat Building, Colombo 1. 86. Hon. AƩ orney General, Colombo 12 RESPONDENTS 1. Hon. Ranil Wickremasinghe, Minister of Policy Planning, Economic Affairs, Child, Youth and Cultural Affairs 2. Hon. Ravi Karunanayake, Minister of Finance 3. Hon Mangala Samaraweera, Minister of Foreign Affairs 4. Hon. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, Minister of Justice Minister of Buddha Sasana 5. Hon. D. M. Swaminathan, Minister of Rehabilitation, Resettlement, Reconstruction and Hindu Affairs 6. Hon. John Amaratunga Minister of Tourism and Christian Affairs 7. Hon. Gamini Jayawickrama Perera, Minister of Sustainable Development and Wildlife 8. Hon. Lakshman Kiriella, Minister of Universities, Education and Highways 9. Hon. Tilak Marapana, Minister of Law & Order and Prison Reforms 10. Hon. Rajitha Senaratne, Minister of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine 11. Hon. Vajira Abeywardena, Minister of Internal Affairs 12. Hon. S. B. Nawinne, Minister of Internal Affairs Cultural Affairs and Wayamba Development 13. Hon. P. Harrison, Minister of Rural Economic Affairs 14. Hon. R. M. Ranjith Madduma Bandara, Minister of Public Administration and Management 15. Hon. Gayantha Karunathilaka, 10 Minister of Media 16. Hon. Sajith Premadasa, Minister of Housing and Development 17. Hon. Arjuna Ranatunga, Minister of Ports and Naval Affairs 18. Hon. Chandrani Bandara Jayasinghe, Minister of Women and Child Affairs 19. Hon. Thalatha Atukorale, Minister of Foreign Employment 20. Hon. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Minister of Education 21. Hon. Sagala Ratnayaka, Minister of Southern Development 22. Hon. Harin Fernando, Minister of Telecommunications and Digital Infrastructure 23. Hon. Daya Gamage, Minister of Primary Industries 24. Hon. Malik Samarawickrama, Minister of Development Strategy and International Trade 25. Hon. Kabir Hashim, Minister of Public Enterprise Development 26. Hon. Navin Dissanayake, Minister of Plantation Industries 27. Hon. M. H. A. Haleem, Minister of Postal and Muslim Affairs 28. Hon. M. K. A. D. S. Gunawardana, Minister of Lands 28(a) Hon. John Amarathunga, Minister of Lands 11 29. Hon. Rauff Hakeem, Minister of City Planning and Water Supply 30. Hon. Champika Ranawaka, Minister of Megapolis and Western Development 31. Hon. Risad Badhiutheen, Minister of Industry and Commerce 32. Hon. Mano Ganesan, Minister of National Dialogue 33. Hon. Palani Digambaran, Minister of Estate Infrastructure Development 34. Hon. Nimal Siripala de Silva, Minister of Transport 35. Hon. S. B. Dissanayake, Minister of Social Empowering and Welfare 36. Hon. John Seneviratne, Minister of Labour and Trade Union Relations 37. Hon. Faiszer Musthapha, Minister of Local Government 38. Hon. Anura Priyadharshana Yapa, Minister of Disaster Management 39. Hon. Vijith Vijayamuni Soysa, Minister of Irrigation and Water Management 40. Hon. Susil Premajayanth, Minister of Technology, Technology Education and Employment 41. Hon. Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of Skills Development and Vocational Training 12 13 42. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 43. Hon. Ranjith Siyambalapitiya, Minister of Power and Renewable Energy 44. Hon. Duminda Dissanayake, Minister of Agriculture 45. Hon. Chandima Weerakkody, Minister of Petroleum Resources Development 46. Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Minister of Sports C/O Secretary to the Cabinet of the Ministers Republic Square, D.B. Jayathilake Mawatha, Colombo 01 47. Hon. Sarath Fonseka, Minister of Regional Development, ADDED RESPONDENTS 1. Hon. Maithripala Sirisena, Minister of NaƟ onal IntegraƟ on & ReconciliaƟ on, Defence and Mahaweli Development & Environment 2. Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe, Minister of NaƟ onal Policies and Economic Affairs 3. Hon. John Amaratunga, Minister of Tourism Development and ChrisƟ an Religious Affairs 4. Hon. Gamini Jayawickrama Perera, Minister of Sustainable Development and Wildlife, Buddhasashana 5. Hon. Nimal Siripala De Silva, Minister of Transport and Civil AviaƟ on 14 6. Hon. Thilak Marapana, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Development Assignments 7. Hon. S.B. Dissanayake, Minister of Social Empowerment, Welfare and Kandyan Heritage 8. Hon. W.D.J. Seneviratne, Minister of Labour, Trade Union RelaƟ ons and Sabaragamu Development 9. Hon. Lakshman Kiriella, Minister of Higher EducaƟ on and Highways 10. Hon. (Dr.) Sarath Amunugama, Minister of Special Assignments 11. Hon. Rauff Hakeem, Minister of City Planning and Water Supply 12. Hon. Anura Priyadharshana Yapa, Minister of Disaster Management 13. Hon. A.D. Susil Premajayantha, Minister of Science Technology and Research 14. Hon. (Dr.) Rajitha Senaratne, Minister of Health, NutriƟ on and Indigenous Medicine 15. Hon. Mangala Samaraweera, Minister of Finance and Mass Media 16. Hon. Chandima Weerakkodi Minister of Skills Development and VocaƟ onal Training 17. Hon. Vajira Abeywardana, Minister of Home Affairs 18. Hon. S.B. Navinne, Minister of Internal Affairs, Wayamba Development and Cultural Affairs 19. Hon. Rishad Bathiudeen, Minister of Industry and Commerce 20. Hon. Patali Champika Ranawaka, Minister of Megapolis and Western Development 21. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Fisheries and AquaƟ c Resources Development 22. Hon. Navin Dissanayake, Minister of PlantaƟ on Industries 23. Hon. Ranjith SiyambalapiƟ ya, Minister of Power and Renewable Energy 24. Hon. Duminda Dissanayake, Minister of Agriculture 25. Hon. Vijith Vijayamuni Zoysa, Minister of IrrigaƟ on and Water Resources Management 26. Hon. (Mrs.) Thalatha Atukorale, Minister of JusƟ ce and Foreign Employment 27. Hon. P. Harrison, Minister of Rural Economy 28. Hon. Kabir Hashim, Minister of Public Enterprise Development 29. Hon. Ranjith Madduma Bandara, Minister of Public AdministraƟ on and Management 30. Hon. Sajith Premadasa, Minister of Housing and ConstrucƟ on 31. Hon. Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of Ports and Shipping 32. Hon. Gayantha Karunathilaka, Ministry of Lands and Parliamentary Reforms 15 33. Hon. U. Palany Thigambaram, Minister of Hill Country New Villages, Infrastructure and Community Development 34. Hon. (Mrs.) Chandrani Bandara, Minister of Women and Child Affairs 35. Hon. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Minister of EducaƟ on 36. Hon. M.H.A. Haleem, Minister of Posts, Postal Services and Muslim Religious Affairs 37. Hon. Faiszer Musthapha, Minister of Provincial Counsel and Local Government 38. Hon. D.M. Swaminathan, Minister of Provincial Counsel and Local Government 39. Hon. Arjuna Ranathunga, Minister of Petroleum Resources Development 40. Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Minister of Sports 41. Hon. Sagala Ratnayaka, Minister of Law & Order and Southern Development 42. Hon. Harin Fernando, Minister of TelecommunicaƟ on and Digital Infrastructure 43. Hon. Mano Ganesan, Minister of NaƟ onal Co-existence Dialogue and Official Languages 44. Hon. Daya Gamage, Minister of Primary Industries 45. Hon. Malik Samarawickrama, 16 Minister of Development Strategies and InternaƟ onal Trade 46. Hon. Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, Minister of Regional Development ADDED RESPONDENTS COMPRISING OF THE CABINET MINISTERS AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED 01. Hon. Maithripala Sirisena, Minister of Defence and Mahaweli Development & Environment 02. Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe, Minister of NaƟ onal Policies and Economic Affairs 03. Hon. John Amaratunga, Minister of Tourism Development and ChrisƟ an Religious Affairs 04. Hon. Gamini Jayawickrama Perera, Minister of Buddhasashana 05. Hon. Nimal Siripala De Silva, Minister of Transport and Civil AviaƟ on 06. Hon. Mangala Samaraweera, Minister of Finance and Mass Media 07. Hon. Lakshman Kiriella, Minister of Public Enterprise and Kandy City Development 08. Hon. (Dr.) Sarath Amunugama, Minister of Science, Technology Research, Skills Developments and VocaƟ onal Training and Kandyan Heritage 09. Hon. Rauff Hakeem, Minister of City Planning and Water Supply 10. Hon. Thilak Marapana, Minister of Foreign Affairs 17 11. Hon. (Dr.) Rajitha Senaratne, Minister of Health, NutriƟ on and Indigenous Medicine 12. Hon.Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of Ports and Shipping 13. Hon. Vajira Abeywardana, Minister of Home Affairs 14. Hon. S.B. Navinne, Minister of Internal Affairs, and Wayamba Development 15. Hon. Rishad Bathiudeen, Minister of Industry and Commerce 16. Hon. Patali Champika Ranawaka, Minister of Megapolis and Western Development 17. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Agriculture 18. Hon. Navin Dissanayake, Minister of PlantaƟ on Industries 19. Hon. Ranjith SiyambalapiƟ ya, Minister of Power and Renewable Energy 20. Hon. Duminda Dissanayake, Minister of IrrigaƟ on and Water Resources and Disaster Management 21. Hon. Vijith Vijayamuni Zoysa, Minister of Fisheries & AquaƟ c Resources Development and Rural Economic Affairs 22. Hon. Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, Minister of Higher educaƟ on and Cultural Affairs, 23. Hon. P. Harrison, Minister of Social Empowerment 18 24. Hon. Kabir Hashim, Minister of Highways and Road Development 25. Hon. Ranjith Madduma Bandara, Minister of Public AdministraƟ on and Management and Law & Order 26. Hon. Gayantha Karunathilaka, Ministry of Lands and Parliamentary Reforms 27. Hon. Sajith Premadasa, Minister of Housing and ConstrucƟ on 28. Hon. Arjuna Ranathung,a Minister of Petroleum Resources Development 29. Hon. U. Palany Thigambaram, Minister of Hill Country New Villages, Infrastructure and Community Development 30. Hon. (Mrs.) Chandrani Bandara, Minister of Women and Child Affairs 31. Hon. (Mrs.) Thalatha Atukorale, Minister of JusƟ ce and Prison Reforms 32. Hon. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Minister of EducaƟ on 33. Hon. M.H.A. Haleem, Minister of Posts, Postal Services and Muslim Religious Affairs 34. Hon. Faiszer Musthapha, Minister of Provincial Councill, Local Government and Sports 35. Hon. D.M. Swaminathan, Minister of Re seƩ lement, RehabilitaƟ on, Northern Development and Hindu Religious Affairs 36. Hon. Sagala Ratnayaka, Minister of Youth Affairs, Project Management and Southern Development 19 20 37. Hon. Harin Fernando, Minister of TelecommunicaƟ on, Digital Infrastructure and Foreign Employment 38. Hon. Mano Ganesan, Minister of NaƟ onal IntegraƟ on, ReconciliaƟ on and Official Languages 39. Hon. Daya Gamage, Minister of Social, Welfare and Primary Industries 40. Hon. Malik Samarawickrama, Minister of Development Strategies and InternaƟ onal Trade 41. Hon. Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, Minister of Sustainable Development, Wildlife and Regional Development 42. Hon. Ravindra Samaraweera, Minister of Labor and Trade Union Relations ADDED RESPONDENTS COMPRISING OF THE CABINET MINISTERS AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED 1. Honourable Ranil Wickremasinghe, Prime Minister Minister of NaƟ onal Policies, Economic Affairs, ReseƩ lement & RehabilitaƟ on, Northern Province Development, VocaƟ onal Training & Skills Development and Youth Affairs 2. Honourable John Amarathunga, Minister of Tourism Development, Wildlife and ChrisƟ an Religious Affairs, 3. Honourable Gamini Jayawickrema Perera, Minister of Buddhasasana & Wayamba Development, 4. Honourable Mangala Samaraweera, Minister of Finance and Mass Media, 21 5. Honourable Lakshman Kiriella, Minister of Public Enterprise, Kandyan Heritage and Kandy Development, 6. Honourable Rauff Hakeem, Minister of City Planning, Water Supply and Higher EducaƟ on 7. Honourable Thilak Marapana, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Republic Building, 8. Honourable (Dr) Rajitha Senaratne, Minister of Health, NutriƟ on and Indigenous Medicine, 9. Honourable Ravi Karunanayake, Minister of Power, Energy and Business Development, 10. Honourable Vajira Abeywardena, Minister of Internal & Home Affairs and Provincial Council & Local Government 11. Honourable Rishad Bathiudeen, Minister of Industry & Commerce, ReseƩ lement of Protracted Displaced Persons and Co-OperaƟ ve Development, 12. Honourable Patali Champika Ranawaka, Minister of Megapolis and Western Development, 13. Honourable Navin Dissanayake, Minister of PlantaƟ on Industries, 14. Honourable P. Harison, Minister of Agriculture, Rural Economic Affairs, Livestock Development, IrrigaƟ on and Fisheries & AquaƟ c Resources Development 15. Honourable Kabir Hashim, Minister of Highways & Road Development and Petroleum Resources Development, 16. Honourable Ranjith Madduma Bandara, Minister of Public AdministraƟ on &Disaster Management, 17. Honourable Gayantha Karunathilaka, Minister of Lands and Parliamentary Reforms, 18. Honourable Sajith Premadasa, Minister of Housing, ConstrucƟ on and Cultural Affairs, 19. Honourable Arjuna Ranatunga, Minister of Transport and Civil AviaƟ on, 20. Honourable U. Palani Digambaram, Minister of Hill Country New Villages, Infrastructure and Community Development, 21. Honourable (Mrs.) Chandrani Bandara, Minister of Women & Child Affairs and Dry Zone Development, 22. Honourable (Mrs.) Thalatha Atukorale, Minister of JusƟ ce & Prison Reforms, 23. Honourable Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Minister of EducaƟ on, 24. Honourable M.H.A. Haleem, Minister of Postal Services and Muslim Religious Affairs, 25. Honourable Sagala Ratnayake, Minister of Ports & Shipping and Southern Development, 26. Honourable Harin Fernando, Minister of TelecommunicaƟ on, Foreign Employment and Sports 27. Honourable Mano Ganesan, Minister of NaƟ onal IntegraƟ on, Official Languages, Social Progress and Hindu Religious Affairs 22 23 28. Honourable Daya Gamage, Minister of Labour, Trade Union RelaƟ ons and Social Empowerment, 29. Honourable Malik Samarawickrema, Minister of Development Strategies and InternaƟ onal Trade, ADDED RESPONDENTS COMPRISING OF THE CABINET MINISTERS AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED 1. Hon. Mahinda Rajapakse, Minister of Finance, Economy and Policy Development, Minister of Buddhasasana, Cultural and Religious Affairs, Minister of Urban Development, Water 2. Hon. Nimal Siripala De Silva, Minister of JusƟ ce, Human Right & Legal Reforms 3. Hon. Arumugan Thondaman, Minister of Community Empowerment and Estate Infrastructure Development 4. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena, Minister of Foreign RelaƟ ons, Skills Development, Employment and Labour RelaƟ ons 5. Hon. Douglas Devananda, Minister of Fisheries & AquaƟ c Resources 6. Hon. (Mrs.) Pavithra Devi Wanniarachchi, Minister of Women & Child Affairs and Social Security, Healthcare and Indigenous Medical Service 7. Hon. Bandula Gunawardena, Minister of InformaƟ on and CommunicaƟ on Technology, Higher EducaƟ on, Technology and InnovaƟ on 24 8. Hon. Janaka Bandara Tennakoon, Minister of Public AdministraƟ on, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils & Local Government 9. Hon. Chamal Rajapakse, Minister of Mahaweli, Agriculture, IrrigaƟ on and Rural Development, Internal Trade, Food Security and Consumer Welfare 10. Hon. Dullas Alahapperuma, Minister of EducaƟ on, Sport & Youth Affairs 11. Hon. Johnston Fernando, Minister of Roads and Highways, Ports & Shipping 12. Hon. Wimal Weerawansa, Minister of Small & Medium Business and Enterprise Development, Industries and Supply Chain Management 13. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Passenger Transport Management Minister of Power & Energy 14. Hon. S.M.Chandrasena, Minister of Environment and Wildlife Resources, Lands & Land Development 15. Hon. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of PlantaƟ on Industries and Export Agriculture 16. Hon. Prasanna Ranatunga, Minister of Industrial Export and Investment PromoƟ on, Tourism and Civil AviaƟ on ADDED RESPONDENTS COMPRISING OF THE CABINET MINISTERS AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED 25 1. Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa Minister of Finance Minster of Buddha Sasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs 2. Hon. Nimal Siripala De Silva, Minister of Labour, 3. Hon. Prof. G.L Peiris, Minister of Education 4. Hon. Pavithradevi Wanniarachchi, Minister of Health 5. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardana, Minister of Foreign Relations 6. Hon. Douglas Devananda, Minister of Fisheries 7. Hon. Gamini Lokuge, Minister of Transport 8. Hon. Bandula Gunawardana, Minister of Trade 9. Hon. R.M.C.B. Rathnayake, Minister of Wildlife and Forest Conservation 10. Hon. Janaka Bandara Tennakoon, Minister of Public Services, Provincial Councils and Local Government 11. Hon. Keheliya Rambukwella, Rambukwella Minister of Mass Media 12. Hon. Chamal Rajapaksa, Minister of Irrigation 13. Hon. Dullas Alahapperuma, Minister of Power 14. Hon. Johnston Fernando, Minister of Highways 15. Hon. Wimal Weerawansa, Minister of Industries 16. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Environment 17. Hon. S.M. Chandrasena, Minister of Land 18. Hon. Mahindananda Aluthgamage, Minister of Agriculture 19. Hon. Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Minister of Water Supply 20. Hon. Udaya Prabhath Gammanpila, Minister of Energy 21. Hon. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Plantation 22. Hon. Prasanna Ranatunga, Minister of Tourism 23. Hon. Rohitha Abeygunawardena, Minister of Ports and Shipping 24. Hon. Namal Rajapaksa, Minister of Youth and Sports Affairs 25. Hon. M.U.M. Ali Sabry PC, Minister of Justice ADDED RESPONDENTS COMPRISING OF THE CABINET MINISTERS AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED 01. Hon.Basil Rajapaksa, Minister of Finance 02. Hon.Sarath Weerasekara Minister of Public Security ADDED RESPONDENTS COMPRISING OF THE CABINET MINISTERS AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED
⚖ Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 17 read with Article 126(2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. SC (FR) Application No: 158/2012 1. Kuruppu Mullage Priyantha, No. 40, MDH Pura, Thalangama South, PelawaƩ a, BaƩ aramulla. 2. Nimal Amarasiri Meegammana, No. 64, Heennakade Owilikandha, Matale. 3. Habarakadage Chandrapala, No. 337/A2, MaƟ Imbuwa, AngampiƟ ya, Padukka. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Sri Lanka Transport Board 2. Chairman, Sri Lanka Transport Board 3. D.A.P. Senevirathne Chief ExecuƟ ve Officer 3A. R.V.D. Piyathilake 3B. P.D. Balasooriya 3C. Sagara H. Waduge 3D. Mahesh Karunathilake 3 – 3D Respondents - Chief ExecuƟ ve Officer, Sri Lanka Transport Board THE CAPTION GOES ON TILL PAGE 26 – I HAVE NOT ANNXED THOSE PAGES TO THE DRAFT 2 4. L.A. Wimalarathne, Vice Chairman, Director 4A. Bandula Dias, Vice Chairman, Director 4B. Ramal Siriwardhane, Chairman/Director 4C. K.D. Karunaratne 5. S.B. UdawaƩ e 5A. B.G.B.P. Jayasiri 5B. N.W. Nathavitharana 5C. Ruwan R. Thilakarathne 6. Ivan Tissera 6A. H.H. Erantha Priya Sudesh De Silva 6B. D.C.W. Hapugoda 6C. P.H.A.S. Wijerathne 7. Prasanna Kumara de Silva 7A. J.M. Thilakarathne Banda 7B. A.D. Jayasekara 7C. J.M. Thilakarathne Banda 7D. N. Nathavitharana 8. Nihal Jayathilake 8A. M. Nathawitharana 8B. H.M.A. Piyasudes De Silva 8C. B.G.B.P. Jayasiri 8D. A.P.L.P. Samarasinghe 8E. Buddhika Iddamalgoda 8F. Nurajith Singh 4 th to 8F Respondents all Directors of the Sri Lanka Transport Board. 9. Thisani Thenabadu 9A. A.K.C. Dhammika Silochana 9B. A.K.T.D. Thilochana 9C. O.W.D. Nimasha Ayanthi 9 th – 9C Respondents are Secretary of the Sri Lanka Transport Board 10. U.R. Perera 10A. Premalal Peiris 10B. H.G.Samantha Kumara 10C. Champika Malkanthi 10th – 10C Respondents are Chief Human Resources Manager, Sri Lanka Transport Board. 11. M.S.S. Vaidyathilake, Chief Finance Manager 11A. Sumith Hettiarachchi, Chief Finance Manager (Acting) 11B. Chandana Kumara Herath, Chief Human Resources Manager 12. N.K.C. Wijayasiri Silva, Manager, Approved Provident Fund 12A. Bandula De Silva, 3 Manager, Approved Provident Fund 13. S.M. Sunila Malkanthi, AccounƟ ng Officer/Treasurer of the Approved Provident Fund 14. B.A.B. Jayasinghe, Secretary of the Approved Provident Fund 15. Nimal Abeysiri 16. H.M. Chandrasiri Perera 17. D. Lakshman Nanayakkara 18. K.P. Kithsiri 19. S. Ranasinghe 20. H.K. Dissanayake 9 th to 20th Respondents all members of the CommiƩ ee of Management of the Approved Provident Fund 1 st – 20th Respondents at No. 200, Kirula Road, Colombo 5. 21. Hon. Prime Minister D.M. Jayaratne, Minister of Buddhasasana and Religious Affairs 22. Hon. Ratnasiri Wickremanayake, Minister (Senior) for Good Governance And Infrastructure 23. Hon. D.E.W. Gunasekara, Minister (Senior) for Human Resources 24. Hon. Athauda Seneviratne, Minister (Senior) for Rural Affairs 25. Hon. P. Dayaratne, Minister (Senior) for Food Security 26. Hon. A.H.M. Fowzie, Minister (Senior) for Urban Affairs 27. Hon. Milroy Fernando, Minister (Senior) for Social Servies 4 28. Hon. S.B. Navinne, Minister (Senior) for Consumer Welfare 29. Hon. Piyasena Gamage, Minister (Senior) for NaƟ onal Resources 30. Hon. (Prof.) Tissa Vitharana, Minister (Senior) for ScienƟ fic Affairs 31. Hon. Dr. Sarath Amunugama, Minister (Senior) for InternaƟ onal Monetary CorporaƟ on. 22nd to 31st Respondents at Secretariat for Senior Ministers, No. 356B, (Carlwil Place), Galle Road, Colombo 3. 32. Hon. Nimal Siripala de Silva, Minister of IrrigaƟ on and Water Resources Management 33. Hon. Maithripala Sirisena, Minister of Health 34. Hon. A.D. Susil Premajayantha, Minister of Petroleum Industries 35. Hon. Arumugam Thondaman, Minister of Livestock and Rural Community Development 36. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena, Minister of Water Supply and Drainage 37. Hon. Douglas Devananda, Minister of TradiƟ onal Industries and Small Enterprise Development 38. Hon. A.L.M. Athaullah, Minister of Local Government and Provincial Councils 39. Hon. Abdul Rishad Bathiudeen, 5 Minister of Industry and Commerce 40. Hon. Patali Champika Ranawaka, Minister of Power and Energy 41. Hon. Wimal Weerawansa, Minister of ConstrucƟ on, Engineering Services, Housing and Common AmeniƟ es 42. Hon. Rauff Hakeem, Minister of JusƟ ce 43. Hon. Basil Rajapaksa, Minister of Economic Development 44. Hon. Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Minister of NaƟ onal Languages and Social IntegraƟ on 45. Hon. S.B. Dissanayake, Minister of Higher EducaƟ on 46. Hon. (Prof.) G.L. Peiris, Minister of External Affairs 47. Hon. W.D.J. Seneviratna, Minister of Public AdministraƟ on and Home Affairs 48. Hon. Mrs. Sumedha G. Jayasena, Minister of Parliamentary Affairs 49. Hon. Jeevan Kumaranatunga, Minister of Postal Services 50. Hon. Mrs. Pavithra Wanniarachchi, Minister of Technology and Research 51. Hon. Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Minister of Environment 52. Hon. Tissa Karalliyadda, Minister of Child Development and Women’s Affairs 6 53. Hon. Gamini Lokuge, Minister of Labour And Labour RelaƟ ons 54. Hon. Bandula Gunawardena, Minister of Education 55. Hon. Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of PlantaƟ on Industries 56. Hon. (Dr.) Rajitha Senaratne, Minister of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Development 57. Hon. Janaka Bandara Tennakoon, Minister of Lands and Land Development 58. Hon. Felix Perera, Minister of Social Services 59. Hon. R.M.C.B. Ratnayake, Minister of Private Transport Services 60. Hon. Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, Minister of Agriculture 61. Hon. (Dr) Keheliya Rambukwella, Minister of Mass Media and InformaƟ on 62. Hon. Kumara Welgama, Minister of Transport 63. Hon. Dallus Alahapperuma, Minister of Youth Affairs & Skills Development 64. Hon. Johnston Fernando, Minister of Co-operaƟ ve and Internal Trade 65. Hon. Chandrasiri Gajadeera, Minister of RehabilitaƟ on and Prison Reforms 66. Hon. Salinda Dissanayake, Minister of Indigenous Medicine, 67. Hon. Reginald Cooray, Minister of Minor Export Crop PromoƟ on 7 68. Hon. Dilan Perera, Minister of Foreign Employment PromoƟ on & Welfare 69. Hon. Jagath Pushpakumara, Minister of Coconut Development & Janata Estate Development 70. Hon. T.B. Ekanayake, Minister of Culture & AestheƟ c Affairs 71. Hon. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Disaster Management 72. Hon. S.M. Chandrasena, Minister of Agrarian Services & Wildlife 73. Hon. M.H. Gunarathne Weerakoon, Minister of ReseƩ lement 74. Hon. (Dr.) Mervyn Silva, Minister of Public RelaƟ ons & Public Affairs 75. Hon. Mahindananda Aluthgamage, Minister of Sports 76. Hon. Dayashritha Tissera, Minister of State Resources and Enterprise Development 77. Hon. Ranjith SiyambalapiƟ ya, Minister of TelecommunicaƟ on & InformaƟ on, Technology 78. Hon. (Dr.) Jagath Balasooriya, Minister of NaƟ onal Heritage 79. Hon. Lakshman Senevirathne, Minister of ProducƟ vity PromoƟ on 80. Hon. Naveen Dissanayake, Minister of Public Management Reforms 81. Hon. Priyankara Jayaratne, 8 9 Minister of Civil AviaƟ on 82. Mr. Sumith Abeysinghe 82A. Mr. A. Amarasekara 82B. Mr. W.M.D.J. Fernando, Secretary to the Cabinet of Ministers 32nd - 82nd Respondents at Office of the Cabinet of Ministers, Republic Square, Sir Baron JayaƟ lleke Mawatha, Colombo 01. 83. Secretary, Ministry of Transport 83A. Secretary, Ministry of Internal Transport 84. Commissioner General of Labour, Ministry of Labour and Labour RelaƟ ons 85. Dr. P.B. Jayasundera 85A. Dr. R.H.S. Samaratunga 85B. S.R. Attygalle 85th – 85B Respondents are Secretary to the Treasury and Secretary of Ministry of Finance & Planning, Ministry of Finance & Planning, the Secretariat Building, Colombo 1. 86. Hon. AƩ orney General, Colombo 12 RESPONDENTS 1. Hon. Ranil Wickremasinghe, Minister of Policy Planning, Economic Affairs, Child, Youth and Cultural Affairs 2. Hon. Ravi Karunanayake, Minister of Finance 3. Hon Mangala Samaraweera, Minister of Foreign Affairs 4. Hon. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, Minister of Justice Minister of Buddha Sasana 5. Hon. D. M. Swaminathan, Minister of Rehabilitation, Resettlement, Reconstruction and Hindu Affairs 6. Hon. John Amaratunga Minister of Tourism and Christian Affairs 7. Hon. Gamini Jayawickrama Perera, Minister of Sustainable Development and Wildlife 8. Hon. Lakshman Kiriella, Minister of Universities, Education and Highways 9. Hon. Tilak Marapana, Minister of Law & Order and Prison Reforms 10. Hon. Rajitha Senaratne, Minister of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine 11. Hon. Vajira Abeywardena, Minister of Internal Affairs 12. Hon. S. B. Nawinne, Minister of Internal Affairs Cultural Affairs and Wayamba Development 13. Hon. P. Harrison, Minister of Rural Economic Affairs 14. Hon. R. M. Ranjith Madduma Bandara, Minister of Public Administration and Management 15. Hon. Gayantha Karunathilaka, 10 Minister of Media 16. Hon. Sajith Premadasa, Minister of Housing and Development 17. Hon. Arjuna Ranatunga, Minister of Ports and Naval Affairs 18. Hon. Chandrani Bandara Jayasinghe, Minister of Women and Child Affairs 19. Hon. Thalatha Atukorale, Minister of Foreign Employment 20. Hon. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Minister of Education 21. Hon. Sagala Ratnayaka, Minister of Southern Development 22. Hon. Harin Fernando, Minister of Telecommunications and Digital Infrastructure 23. Hon. Daya Gamage, Minister of Primary Industries 24. Hon. Malik Samarawickrama, Minister of Development Strategy and International Trade 25. Hon. Kabir Hashim, Minister of Public Enterprise Development 26. Hon. Navin Dissanayake, Minister of Plantation Industries 27. Hon. M. H. A. Haleem, Minister of Postal and Muslim Affairs 28. Hon. M. K. A. D. S. Gunawardana, Minister of Lands 28(a) Hon. John Amarathunga, Minister of Lands 11 29. Hon. Rauff Hakeem, Minister of City Planning and Water Supply 30. Hon. Champika Ranawaka, Minister of Megapolis and Western Development 31. Hon. Risad Badhiutheen, Minister of Industry and Commerce 32. Hon. Mano Ganesan, Minister of National Dialogue 33. Hon. Palani Digambaran, Minister of Estate Infrastructure Development 34. Hon. Nimal Siripala de Silva, Minister of Transport 35. Hon. S. B. Dissanayake, Minister of Social Empowering and Welfare 36. Hon. John Seneviratne, Minister of Labour and Trade Union Relations 37. Hon. Faiszer Musthapha, Minister of Local Government 38. Hon. Anura Priyadharshana Yapa, Minister of Disaster Management 39. Hon. Vijith Vijayamuni Soysa, Minister of Irrigation and Water Management 40. Hon. Susil Premajayanth, Minister of Technology, Technology Education and Employment 41. Hon. Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of Skills Development and Vocational Training 12 13 42. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 43. Hon. Ranjith Siyambalapitiya, Minister of Power and Renewable Energy 44. Hon. Duminda Dissanayake, Minister of Agriculture 45. Hon. Chandima Weerakkody, Minister of Petroleum Resources Development 46. Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Minister of Sports C/O Secretary to the Cabinet of the Ministers Republic Square, D.B. Jayathilake Mawatha, Colombo 01 47. Hon. Sarath Fonseka, Minister of Regional Development, ADDED RESPONDENTS 1. Hon. Maithripala Sirisena, Minister of NaƟ onal IntegraƟ on & ReconciliaƟ on, Defence and Mahaweli Development & Environment 2. Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe, Minister of NaƟ onal Policies and Economic Affairs 3. Hon. John Amaratunga, Minister of Tourism Development and ChrisƟ an Religious Affairs 4. Hon. Gamini Jayawickrama Perera, Minister of Sustainable Development and Wildlife, Buddhasashana 5. Hon. Nimal Siripala De Silva, Minister of Transport and Civil AviaƟ on 14 6. Hon. Thilak Marapana, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Development Assignments 7. Hon. S.B. Dissanayake, Minister of Social Empowerment, Welfare and Kandyan Heritage 8. Hon. W.D.J. Seneviratne, Minister of Labour, Trade Union RelaƟ ons and Sabaragamu Development 9. Hon. Lakshman Kiriella, Minister of Higher EducaƟ on and Highways 10. Hon. (Dr.) Sarath Amunugama, Minister of Special Assignments 11. Hon. Rauff Hakeem, Minister of City Planning and Water Supply 12. Hon. Anura Priyadharshana Yapa, Minister of Disaster Management 13. Hon. A.D. Susil Premajayantha, Minister of Science Technology and Research 14. Hon. (Dr.) Rajitha Senaratne, Minister of Health, NutriƟ on and Indigenous Medicine 15. Hon. Mangala Samaraweera, Minister of Finance and Mass Media 16. Hon. Chandima Weerakkodi Minister of Skills Development and VocaƟ onal Training 17. Hon. Vajira Abeywardana, Minister of Home Affairs 18. Hon. S.B. Navinne, Minister of Internal Affairs, Wayamba Development and Cultural Affairs 19. Hon. Rishad Bathiudeen, Minister of Industry and Commerce 20. Hon. Patali Champika Ranawaka, Minister of Megapolis and Western Development 21. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Fisheries and AquaƟ c Resources Development 22. Hon. Navin Dissanayake, Minister of PlantaƟ on Industries 23. Hon. Ranjith SiyambalapiƟ ya, Minister of Power and Renewable Energy 24. Hon. Duminda Dissanayake, Minister of Agriculture 25. Hon. Vijith Vijayamuni Zoysa, Minister of IrrigaƟ on and Water Resources Management 26. Hon. (Mrs.) Thalatha Atukorale, Minister of JusƟ ce and Foreign Employment 27. Hon. P. Harrison, Minister of Rural Economy 28. Hon. Kabir Hashim, Minister of Public Enterprise Development 29. Hon. Ranjith Madduma Bandara, Minister of Public AdministraƟ on and Management 30. Hon. Sajith Premadasa, Minister of Housing and ConstrucƟ on 31. Hon. Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of Ports and Shipping 32. Hon. Gayantha Karunathilaka, Ministry of Lands and Parliamentary Reforms 15 33. Hon. U. Palany Thigambaram, Minister of Hill Country New Villages, Infrastructure and Community Development 34. Hon. (Mrs.) Chandrani Bandara, Minister of Women and Child Affairs 35. Hon. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Minister of EducaƟ on 36. Hon. M.H.A. Haleem, Minister of Posts, Postal Services and Muslim Religious Affairs 37. Hon. Faiszer Musthapha, Minister of Provincial Counsel and Local Government 38. Hon. D.M. Swaminathan, Minister of Provincial Counsel and Local Government 39. Hon. Arjuna Ranathunga, Minister of Petroleum Resources Development 40. Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Minister of Sports 41. Hon. Sagala Ratnayaka, Minister of Law & Order and Southern Development 42. Hon. Harin Fernando, Minister of TelecommunicaƟ on and Digital Infrastructure 43. Hon. Mano Ganesan, Minister of NaƟ onal Co-existence Dialogue and Official Languages 44. Hon. Daya Gamage, Minister of Primary Industries 45. Hon. Malik Samarawickrama, 16 Minister of Development Strategies and InternaƟ onal Trade 46. Hon. Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, Minister of Regional Development ADDED RESPONDENTS COMPRISING OF THE CABINET MINISTERS AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED 01. Hon. Maithripala Sirisena, Minister of Defence and Mahaweli Development & Environment 02. Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe, Minister of NaƟ onal Policies and Economic Affairs 03. Hon. John Amaratunga, Minister of Tourism Development and ChrisƟ an Religious Affairs 04. Hon. Gamini Jayawickrama Perera, Minister of Buddhasashana 05. Hon. Nimal Siripala De Silva, Minister of Transport and Civil AviaƟ on 06. Hon. Mangala Samaraweera, Minister of Finance and Mass Media 07. Hon. Lakshman Kiriella, Minister of Public Enterprise and Kandy City Development 08. Hon. (Dr.) Sarath Amunugama, Minister of Science, Technology Research, Skills Developments and VocaƟ onal Training and Kandyan Heritage 09. Hon. Rauff Hakeem, Minister of City Planning and Water Supply 10. Hon. Thilak Marapana, Minister of Foreign Affairs 17 11. Hon. (Dr.) Rajitha Senaratne, Minister of Health, NutriƟ on and Indigenous Medicine 12. Hon.Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of Ports and Shipping 13. Hon. Vajira Abeywardana, Minister of Home Affairs 14. Hon. S.B. Navinne, Minister of Internal Affairs, and Wayamba Development 15. Hon. Rishad Bathiudeen, Minister of Industry and Commerce 16. Hon. Patali Champika Ranawaka, Minister of Megapolis and Western Development 17. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Agriculture 18. Hon. Navin Dissanayake, Minister of PlantaƟ on Industries 19. Hon. Ranjith SiyambalapiƟ ya, Minister of Power and Renewable Energy 20. Hon. Duminda Dissanayake, Minister of IrrigaƟ on and Water Resources and Disaster Management 21. Hon. Vijith Vijayamuni Zoysa, Minister of Fisheries & AquaƟ c Resources Development and Rural Economic Affairs 22. Hon. Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, Minister of Higher educaƟ on and Cultural Affairs, 23. Hon. P. Harrison, Minister of Social Empowerment 18 24. Hon. Kabir Hashim, Minister of Highways and Road Development 25. Hon. Ranjith Madduma Bandara, Minister of Public AdministraƟ on and Management and Law & Order 26. Hon. Gayantha Karunathilaka, Ministry of Lands and Parliamentary Reforms 27. Hon. Sajith Premadasa, Minister of Housing and ConstrucƟ on 28. Hon. Arjuna Ranathung,a Minister of Petroleum Resources Development 29. Hon. U. Palany Thigambaram, Minister of Hill Country New Villages, Infrastructure and Community Development 30. Hon. (Mrs.) Chandrani Bandara, Minister of Women and Child Affairs 31. Hon. (Mrs.) Thalatha Atukorale, Minister of JusƟ ce and Prison Reforms 32. Hon. Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Minister of EducaƟ on 33. Hon. M.H.A. Haleem, Minister of Posts, Postal Services and Muslim Religious Affairs 34. Hon. Faiszer Musthapha, Minister of Provincial Councill, Local Government and Sports 35. Hon. D.M. Swaminathan, Minister of Re seƩ lement, RehabilitaƟ on, Northern Development and Hindu Religious Affairs 36. Hon. Sagala Ratnayaka, Minister of Youth Affairs, Project Management and Southern Development 19 20 37. Hon. Harin Fernando, Minister of TelecommunicaƟ on, Digital Infrastructure and Foreign Employment 38. Hon. Mano Ganesan, Minister of NaƟ onal IntegraƟ on, ReconciliaƟ on and Official Languages 39. Hon. Daya Gamage, Minister of Social, Welfare and Primary Industries 40. Hon. Malik Samarawickrama, Minister of Development Strategies and InternaƟ onal Trade 41. Hon. Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, Minister of Sustainable Development, Wildlife and Regional Development 42. Hon. Ravindra Samaraweera, Minister of Labor and Trade Union Relations ADDED RESPONDENTS COMPRISING OF THE CABINET MINISTERS AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED 1. Honourable Ranil Wickremasinghe, Prime Minister Minister of NaƟ onal Policies, Economic Affairs, ReseƩ lement & RehabilitaƟ on, Northern Province Development, VocaƟ onal Training & Skills Development and Youth Affairs 2. Honourable John Amarathunga, Minister of Tourism Development, Wildlife and ChrisƟ an Religious Affairs, 3. Honourable Gamini Jayawickrema Perera, Minister of Buddhasasana & Wayamba Development, 4. Honourable Mangala Samaraweera, Minister of Finance and Mass Media, 21 5. Honourable Lakshman Kiriella, Minister of Public Enterprise, Kandyan Heritage and Kandy Development, 6. Honourable Rauff Hakeem, Minister of City Planning, Water Supply and Higher EducaƟ on 7. Honourable Thilak Marapana, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Republic Building, 8. Honourable (Dr) Rajitha Senaratne, Minister of Health, NutriƟ on and Indigenous Medicine, 9. Honourable Ravi Karunanayake, Minister of Power, Energy and Business Development, 10. Honourable Vajira Abeywardena, Minister of Internal & Home Affairs and Provincial Council & Local Government 11. Honourable Rishad Bathiudeen, Minister of Industry & Commerce, ReseƩ lement of Protracted Displaced Persons and Co-OperaƟ ve Development, 12. Honourable Patali Champika Ranawaka, Minister of Megapolis and Western Development, 13. Honourable Navin Dissanayake, Minister of PlantaƟ on Industries, 14. Honourable P. Harison, Minister of Agriculture, Rural Economic Affairs, Livestock Development, IrrigaƟ on and Fisheries & AquaƟ c Resources Development 15. Honourable Kabir Hashim, Minister of Highways & Road Development and Petroleum Resources Development, 16. Honourable Ranjith Madduma Bandara, Minister of Public AdministraƟ on &Disaster Management, 17. Honourable Gayantha Karunathilaka, Minister of Lands and Parliamentary Reforms, 18. Honourable Sajith Premadasa, Minister of Housing, ConstrucƟ on and Cultural Affairs, 19. Honourable Arjuna Ranatunga, Minister of Transport and Civil AviaƟ on, 20. Honourable U. Palani Digambaram, Minister of Hill Country New Villages, Infrastructure and Community Development, 21. Honourable (Mrs.) Chandrani Bandara, Minister of Women & Child Affairs and Dry Zone Development, 22. Honourable (Mrs.) Thalatha Atukorale, Minister of JusƟ ce & Prison Reforms, 23. Honourable Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Minister of EducaƟ on, 24. Honourable M.H.A. Haleem, Minister of Postal Services and Muslim Religious Affairs, 25. Honourable Sagala Ratnayake, Minister of Ports & Shipping and Southern Development, 26. Honourable Harin Fernando, Minister of TelecommunicaƟ on, Foreign Employment and Sports 27. Honourable Mano Ganesan, Minister of NaƟ onal IntegraƟ on, Official Languages, Social Progress and Hindu Religious Affairs 22 23 28. Honourable Daya Gamage, Minister of Labour, Trade Union RelaƟ ons and Social Empowerment, 29. Honourable Malik Samarawickrema, Minister of Development Strategies and InternaƟ onal Trade, ADDED RESPONDENTS COMPRISING OF THE CABINET MINISTERS AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED 1. Hon. Mahinda Rajapakse, Minister of Finance, Economy and Policy Development, Minister of Buddhasasana, Cultural and Religious Affairs, Minister of Urban Development, Water 2. Hon. Nimal Siripala De Silva, Minister of JusƟ ce, Human Right & Legal Reforms 3. Hon. Arumugan Thondaman, Minister of Community Empowerment and Estate Infrastructure Development 4. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena, Minister of Foreign RelaƟ ons, Skills Development, Employment and Labour RelaƟ ons 5. Hon. Douglas Devananda, Minister of Fisheries & AquaƟ c Resources 6. Hon. (Mrs.) Pavithra Devi Wanniarachchi, Minister of Women & Child Affairs and Social Security, Healthcare and Indigenous Medical Service 7. Hon. Bandula Gunawardena, Minister of InformaƟ on and CommunicaƟ on Technology, Higher EducaƟ on, Technology and InnovaƟ on 24 8. Hon. Janaka Bandara Tennakoon, Minister of Public AdministraƟ on, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils & Local Government 9. Hon. Chamal Rajapakse, Minister of Mahaweli, Agriculture, IrrigaƟ on and Rural Development, Internal Trade, Food Security and Consumer Welfare 10. Hon. Dullas Alahapperuma, Minister of EducaƟ on, Sport & Youth Affairs 11. Hon. Johnston Fernando, Minister of Roads and Highways, Ports & Shipping 12. Hon. Wimal Weerawansa, Minister of Small & Medium Business and Enterprise Development, Industries and Supply Chain Management 13. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Passenger Transport Management Minister of Power & Energy 14. Hon. S.M.Chandrasena, Minister of Environment and Wildlife Resources, Lands & Land Development 15. Hon. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of PlantaƟ on Industries and Export Agriculture 16. Hon. Prasanna Ranatunga, Minister of Industrial Export and Investment PromoƟ on, Tourism and Civil AviaƟ on ADDED RESPONDENTS COMPRISING OF THE CABINET MINISTERS AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED 25 1. Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa Minister of Finance Minster of Buddha Sasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs 2. Hon. Nimal Siripala De Silva, Minister of Labour, 3. Hon. Prof. G.L Peiris, Minister of Education 4. Hon. Pavithradevi Wanniarachchi, Minister of Health 5. Hon. Dinesh Gunawardana, Minister of Foreign Relations 6. Hon. Douglas Devananda, Minister of Fisheries 7. Hon. Gamini Lokuge, Minister of Transport 8. Hon. Bandula Gunawardana, Minister of Trade 9. Hon. R.M.C.B. Rathnayake, Minister of Wildlife and Forest Conservation 10. Hon. Janaka Bandara Tennakoon, Minister of Public Services, Provincial Councils and Local Government 11. Hon. Keheliya Rambukwella, Rambukwella Minister of Mass Media 12. Hon. Chamal Rajapaksa, Minister of Irrigation 13. Hon. Dullas Alahapperuma, Minister of Power 14. Hon. Johnston Fernando, Minister of Highways 15. Hon. Wimal Weerawansa, Minister of Industries 16. Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera, Minister of Environment 17. Hon. S.M. Chandrasena, Minister of Land 18. Hon. Mahindananda Aluthgamage, Minister of Agriculture 19. Hon. Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Minister of Water Supply 20. Hon. Udaya Prabhath Gammanpila, Minister of Energy 21. Hon. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Plantation 22. Hon. Prasanna Ranatunga, Minister of Tourism 23. Hon. Rohitha Abeygunawardena, Minister of Ports and Shipping 24. Hon. Namal Rajapaksa, Minister of Youth and Sports Affairs 25. Hon. M.U.M. Ali Sabry PC, Minister of Justice ADDED RESPONDENTS COMPRISING OF THE CABINET MINISTERS AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED 01. Hon.Basil Rajapaksa, Minister of Finance 02. Hon.Sarath Weerasekara Minister of Public Security ADDED RESPONDENTS COMPRISING OF THE CABINET MINISTERS AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED 26 27 Before: S. Thurairaja, PC, J Janak De Silva, J Arjuna Obeyesekere, J Counsel: Saliya Peiris, PC with Anjana Ratnasiri for the Petitioners Senaka De Saram with Tharindu Balasuriya for the 1st – 20th Respondents Kanishka De Silva Balapatabendi, Deputy Solicitor General for the 31st – 132nd Respondents Argued on: 30th October 2024 Written Tendered on behalf of the Petitioners on 6th September 2023 Submissions: Tendered on behalf of the 1st – 20th Respondents on 28th May 2024 and 7 th January 2025 Tendered on behalf of the 84th Respondent on 29th July 2022 and 8th November 2024 Decided on: 11th March 2026 Obeyesekere, J (1) The PeƟƟ oners are employees of the 1st Respondent, Sri Lanka Transport Board. Together with several other employees of the 1st Respondent, the PeƟƟ oners were members of the Approved Provident Fund of the Sri Lanka Transport Board [the Approved Provident Fund]. (2) On 23rd November 2011, the Cabinet of Ministers had approved the proposals contained in the Cabinet Memorandum [P17] submiƩ ed by the Minister of Labour that the approval granted by the Commissioner General of Labour [the Commissioner General] in terms of SecƟ on 27(2) of the Employees Provident Fund Act, No. 15 of 1958, as amended [the EPF Act] for the Approved Provident Fund be revoked and for the funds available in the Approved Provident Fund be transferred inter alia to the Employees Provident Fund established under the EPF Act. (3) Aggrieved by the said decision of the Cabinet of Ministers [P21], the PeƟƟ oners filed this applicaƟ on on 26th March 2012, complaining that the said decision is a violaƟ on of their fundamental rights guaranteed under ArƟ cle 12(1) of the ConsƟ tuƟ on and seeking inter alia the following relief: (a) Quash the said decision of the Cabinet of Ministers and the consequenƟ al direcƟ ves; (b) A declaraƟ on that the Approved Provident Fund be restored and for funds which have already been transferred to the Employees Provident Fund to be re-transferred to the Approved Provident Fund; and (c) A declaraƟ on that the calculaƟ on of the rate of interest payable on their contribuƟ ons to the Approved Provident Fund be at a rate higher than what is paid to members of the Employees Provident Fund. (4) On 2nd September 2016, the PeƟƟ oners filed an amended peƟƟ on seeking inter alia the following relief: (a) A declaraƟ on that the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers is contrary to law; (b) A declaraƟ on that interest on their contribuƟ ons to the Approved Provident Fund be calculated at the rate of 18% per annum; and (c) A declaraƟ on that the balances lying to their credit in the Approved Provident Fund should have been transferred to the Employees Provident Fund without deducƟ ng their liabiliƟ es arising from the loans that they have taken. (5) Leave to proceed for the alleged infringement of ArƟ cle 12(1) was granted on 26th January 2022. (6) The primary argument of the learned President’s Counsel for the PeƟƟ oners was that the power to revoke the approval granted by the Commissioner General to a provident fund is vested with the Commissioner General but that by permiƫ ng the Cabinet of Ministers to take the said decision, the Commissioner General has allowed himself to be dictated to by the Cabinet of Ministers and that the Commissioner General has thereby abdicated the statutory duty vested in him by 28 SecƟ on 27(10) of the EPF Act. The other relief sought by the PeƟƟ oners is conƟ ngent upon a finding by this Court that the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers is violaƟ ve of the fundamental rights of the PeƟƟ oners guaranteed under ArƟ cle 12(1). (7) While submiƫ ng that the impugned decision was in fact taken by the Commissioner General, the learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent and the learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the Commissioner General raised an objecƟ on that this applicaƟ on has not been filed within the sƟ pulated period of one month from the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers and that this applicaƟ on is therefore liable to be dismissed in limine. The PeƟƟ oners do not dispute that the applicaƟ on has been filed outside the Ɵme period specified in ArƟ cle 126(2) but claim that the infringement complained of is a conƟ nuing infringement and hence, the Ɵme bar shall not apply. Thus, I cannot rule on the said objecƟ on in isolaƟ on of the facts of this applicaƟ on. (8) I shall at the outset refer to the circumstances that led to the impugned decision in order to place in its proper perspecƟ ve the respecƟ ve posiƟ ons of the parƟ es. The Approved Provident Fund (9) The predecessor of the 1st Respondent, the Ceylon Transport Board had been established by SecƟ on 2 of the Motor Transport Act, No. 48 of 1957, as amended. SecƟ on 6 thereof contained the powers of the Ceylon Transport Board and in terms of SecƟ on 6(1)(iv), the Board had the power to establish a provident fund for its employees. It is admiƩ ed that the provident fund which is the subject maƩ er of this applicaƟ on was established under the Motor Transport Act. (10) Provisions with regard to a provident fund or a contributory pension scheme established prior to the enactment of the Act is found in SecƟ on 27 of the EPF Act. Accordingly, the Commissioner General is empowered to declare such a scheme that existed prior to 1958 as an approved provident fund provided he is of the opinion that such fund or scheme saƟ sfies the prescribed requirements and that it is expedient that such fund or scheme should be declared to be an approved provident fund. That process having been followed, the aforemenƟ oned Provident Fund established under the Motor Traffic Act has been declared as an approved provident fund under the EPF Act [i.e. the Approved Provident Fund]. 29 (11) The Motor Transport Act was repealed by the Transport Board Law, No. 19 of 1978. In terms of SecƟ on 8(1)(iv) thereof, the Central Board had the power to establish a provident fund. In terms of SecƟ on 25(c), the Provident Fund established and maintained by the Ceylon Transport Board under the Motor Transport Act shall be deemed to be a provident fund established and maintained by the Central Board for the officers and servants. Even though the Transport Board Law was repealed by the Sri Lanka Transport Board Act, No. 27 of 2005, the laƩ er Act too recognised the Approved Provident Fund. Decision to revoke the declaration (12) The powers that the Commissioner General could exercise over an approved provident fund have been set out in SecƟ on 27 of the EPF Act. In terms of SecƟ on 27(10) thereof: “Where the Commissioner is dissatisfied with the management of any approved provident fund or approved contributory pension scheme, he may revoke the declaration made under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section in respect of that fund or scheme, and, if such declaration is revoked, he shall in writing (a) communicate the revocation to the administrators of that fund or scheme, and (b) direct those administrators to transfer to the Employees\\\' Provident Fund all such contributions and interest thereon as have been paid to that fund or scheme, and those administrators shall comply with the Commissioner\\\'s direction.” (13) I have already stated that the primary argument of the learned President’s Counsel for the PeƟƟ oners was that with the power to revoke the approval granted to the Approved Provident Fund being vested with the Commissioner General, he has abdicated his power by permiƫ ng the Cabinet of Ministers to take the decision to revoke the declaraƟ on relaƟ ng to the Approved Provident Fund. (14) The posiƟ on of the learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the Commissioner General was that the decision was in fact taken by the Commissioner General. She submiƩ ed that the Commissioner General had received several complaints in 2011 [R1 – R4] that the affairs of the Approved Provident Fund are being mismanaged by 30 the CommiƩ ee of Management of the Approved Provident Fund [the CommiƩ ee] in that large sums of money are being used for purposes that are not permiƩ ed and that the Commissioner General had summoned the Chairman of the CommiƩ ee on several occasions to inquire into such complaints. On 18th August 2011, the Commissioner General had issued a direcƟ ve to the Chairman of the CommiƩ ee informing him that he has been apprised of a decision to transfer a sum of Rs. 2.4 billion from the Approved Provident Fund for a purpose which was not permiƩ ed and therefore to immediately suspend the transfer of such monies. (15) The Employees Provident Fund Division of the Department of Labour had thereaŌ er inquired into the affairs of the Approved Provident Fund and recommended the following: (a) To act in terms of SecƟ on 27(10) and revoke the declaraƟ on granted recognising the Approved Provident Fund; (b) Communicate the decision pertaining to the revocaƟ on to the administrator of the Approved Provident Fund; and (c) Direct the administrator of the Approved Provident Fund to transfer to the Employees Provident Fund all such contribuƟ ons and interest thereon as have been paid to the Approved Provident Fund. (16) The above recommendaƟ ons which are in accordance with SecƟ on 27(10) of the EPF Act have been communicated in wriƟ ng on 30th August 2011 to the Commissioner General [R6], who in turn has communicated such decision to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour by his leƩ er dated 8th September 2011 [R7]. (17) It is only thereaŌ er that the Minister of Labour presented the Cabinet Memorandum dated 21st October 2011 [P17] seeking a policy decision from the Cabinet of Ministers to inter alia revoke the declaraƟ on made by the Commissioner General recognising the Approved Provident Fund in terms of SecƟ on 27(10) and to transfer all contribuƟ ons and interest thereon that have been contributed by the members including the PeƟƟ oners to the Employees Provident Fund. 31 (18) I must state that the above proposals in P17 are consistent with SecƟ on 27(11) which provides as follows: “The Monetary Board shall, where the administrators of an approved provident fund or approved contributory pension scheme have complied with a direction issued by the Commissioner under subsection (10) of this section, open an individual account in the Employees\\\' Provident Fund for each employee who was a contributor to that approved provident fund or approved contributory pension scheme when such administrators complied with such direction, and shall credit to that individual account such part of the sum transferred from that approved provident fund or approved contributory pension scheme to the Employees\\\' Provident Fund in compliance with the Commissioner\\\'s direction as was to the credit of that employee\\\'s account in that approved provident fund or approved contributory pension scheme.“ (19) Having considered P17, the Cabinet of Ministers granted policy approval on 23rd November 2011 [P21] to the first three recommendaƟ ons of the Minister of Labour in P17. The Commissioner General had thereaŌ er issued leƩ er dated 2nd December 2011 [R8] to the 1st Respondent revoking the declaraƟ on of the Approved Provident Fund with effect from 1st December 2011 and a further direcƟ ve in terms of SecƟ on 27(10)(b) to the administrator of the Approved Provident Fund to transfer to the Employees Provident Fund all such contribuƟ ons that have been made to the Approved Provident Fund by its members including the PeƟƟ oners together with the interest that had accumulated on such contribuƟ ons. (20) In transferring funds to the Employees Provident Fund, the 1st Respondent has included the contribuƟ on made by each member together with interest thereon but had set off the loans that the PeƟƟ oners have taken. The PeƟƟ oners however have not impugned R8 in their amended peƟƟ on, and hence, in transferring the monies lying to the individual credit of each PeƟƟ oner, whether the outstanding loan balances of such members could have been deducted is not a maƩ er that can be gone into in this applicaƟ on. 32 (21) It is in the above factual circumstances that the learned Deputy Solicitor General submiƩ ed that the genesis of the decision in P21 can be traced to the complaints that were received by the Commissioner General of mismanagement of funds of the Approved Provident Fund, and that the decision in R8 was arrived at independently by the Commissioner General. She submiƩ ed further that any decision in terms of SecƟ on 27(10) of the Act must be taken carefully especially in view of the important role played by the Sri Lanka Transport Board and that policy approval of the Cabinet of Ministers has been sought since cohesive acƟ on was required prior to such an important decision being taken. (22) I have carefully considered the sequence of events leading to P17 and I am saƟ sfied that the decision to revoke the declaraƟ on made in favour of the Approved Provident Fund is a decision of the Commissioner General and that by seeking policy approval of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Commissioner General has neither abdicated his statutory role nor been dictated to. (23) In view of the above conclusion, the necessity for me to consider the objecƟ on that this applicaƟ on is Ɵme-barred does not arise. However, I must state that the violaƟ on complained of is not of a conƟ nuing nature and the Respondents were enƟ tled to succeed with its objecƟ on that the applicaƟ on has not been filed within one month of the infringement since the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers had been taken on 23rd November 2011 and R8 had been issued on 2nd December 2011 whereas this applicaƟ on had been filed only on 26th March 2012. Transfer of funds towards gratuity payments (24) There is one other maƩ er that I wish to advert to. It is admiƩ ed that a sum of Rs. 1.5 billion had been remiƩ ed by the Government towards meeƟ ng the gratuity obligaƟ ons of the 1st Respondent. By P21, the Cabinet of Ministers had directed that any balance sums of money remaining aŌ er the transfer of the contribuƟ ons of the members of the Approved Provident Fund to the Employees Provident Fund be uƟ lised for the payment of gratuity of the employees of the 1st Respondent. It was submiƩ ed by the PeƟƟ oners that the said direcƟ on is illegal. However, by an order made on 20th February 2013, this Court has granted permission for the excess funds 33 to be appropriated towards meeƟ ng the gratuity obligaƟ ons of the 1st Respondent, and hence the said decision cannot be reviewed at this stage. (25) In terms of an audit carried out in respect of the funds of the Approved Provident Fund, even though the total value of the Fund as at 1st December 2011 was Rs. 4.95 billion, the aggregate value of the contribuƟ ons of the members together with interest which is the sum of money that the PeƟƟ oners and other members of the Approved Provident Fund are enƟ tled to was Rs. 1.55 billion. This laƩ er sum of money has been transferred to the Employees Provident Fund thus securing the interests of the PeƟƟ oners. Conclusion (26) In the above circumstances, I am of the view that the fundamental rights of the PeƟƟ oners guaranteed under ArƟ cle 12(1) have not been infringed by the Respondents. This applicaƟ on is accordingly dismissed, without costs. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT S. Thurairaja, PC, J I agree JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT Janak De Silva, J I agree JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT 34 📄 Download
10 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/5/2024 AND SC/APPEAL/6/2024
Kaveen Saparamdu 71/2 , Horton Colombo 7 7 th RESPONDENT APPELLANT - Vs 1. Saparamdu Wickramasingha Arachchige Anura Devapriya 129 , Dutugemunu Kohuwala, Dehiwala. 2. Saparamdu Wickramasingha Arachchige Kassapa Devamitta 250/7 , Highlevel Kirulapona, Colombo 6 3. Saparamdu Wickramasingha Arachchige Upulnayani Rajapathirana (nee Saparamadu) 9 , Papiliyana Papiliyana, Nugegoda. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1. Tisara Investments (Pvt) Ltd 129 , Dutugemunu Kohuwala, Dehiwala. 2. 2. Saparamdu Wickramasingha Arachchige Don Sanathkumara Devapriya (now deceased) 11 , Papiliyana Papiliyana, Nugegoda. 3. Saparamdu Rupa Malathi (now 11, Papiliyana Mawath a, Papiliyana, Nugegoda. 4. Saparamdu Wickramasingha Arachchige Mohan Sanathkumara 71/2 , Horton Colombo 7. (The 4 th Respondents and the Guardian ad litem of the 6 th Respondent Minor) 5. Desano Investments (Pvt) Ltd 129 , Dutugemunu Kohuwala, Dehiwala. 6. Saveen Saparamdu 71/2 , Horton Colombo 7. 8. Senura Rajapathirana Papiliyana Mawatha, Papiliyana, Nugegoda. 9. Vijeni Rajapathirana Papiliyana Mawatha, Papiliyana, Nugegoda. 10 a. Saparamdu Wickramasingha Arachchige Don Sanathkumara Devapriya 11, Papiliyana Mawatha, Papiliyana, Nugegoda. b. Saparamdu Rupa Malathi 11 , Papiliyana Papiliyana, Nugegoda. c. Saparamdu Wickramasingha Arachchige Mohan Sanathkumara 71/2 , Horton Colombo 7. d. Kshenuka Saparamdu 71/2 , Horton Colombo 7. e. Lalitha Boteju 12/2 , Puranavihara Balapokuna, Colombo 6. f. Nihal Illeperuma 56/12 , Circular Udumulla Road, Battaramulla. g. Marja Van Leeuwan Stitching Weeshuis, Meer En Bosalaan 106 , 2554 GA Den Haag, the Netherlands. h. S.J Pahud de Mortanges Kroes Stitching Weeshuis, Meer En Bosalaan 106 , 2554 GA Den Haag, The Netherlands. The trustees of Somawathi Saparamadu Trust 11 . Dr. Uditha Rajapathirana 9 , Papiliyana Papiliyana, Nugegoda. (Guardian ad litem of the 8 th and 9 th Respondents Minors) RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS Kaveen Saparamdu 71/2 , Horton Colombo 7 7 th RESPONDENT APPELLANT - Vs 1. Saparamdu Wickramasingha Arachchige Anura Devapriya 129 , Dutugemunu Kohuwala, Dehiwala. 2. Saparamdu Wickramasingha Arachchige Kassapa Devamitta 250/7 , Highlevel Kirulapona, Colombo 6 3. Saparamdu Wickramasingha Arachchige Upulnayani Rajapathirana (nee Saparamadu) 9 , Papiliyana Papiliyana, Nugegoda. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1. Tisara Investments (Pvt) Ltd 129 , Dutugemunu Kohuwala, Dehiwala. 2. 2. Saparamdu Wickramasingha Arachchige Don Sanathkumara Devapriya (now deceased) 11 , Papiliyana Papiliyana, Nugegoda. 3. Saparamdu Rupa Malathi (now 11, Papiliyana Mawath a, Papiliyana, Nugegoda. 4. Saparamdu Wickramasingha Arachchige Mohan Sanathkumara 71/2 , Horton Colombo 7. (The 4 th Respondents and the Guardian ad litem of the 6 th Respondent Minor) 5. Desano Investments (Pvt) Ltd 129 , Dutugemunu Kohuwala, Dehiwala. 6. Saveen Saparamdu 71/2 , Horton Colombo 7. 8. Senura Rajapathirana Papiliyana Mawatha, Papiliyana, Nugegoda. 9. Vijeni Rajapathirana Papiliyana Mawatha, Papiliyana, Nugegoda. 10 a. Saparamdu Wickramasingha Arachchige Don Sanathkumara Devapriya 11, Papiliyana Mawatha, Papiliyana, Nugegoda. b. Saparamdu Rupa Malathi 11 , Papiliyana Papiliyana, Nugegoda. c. Saparamdu Wickramasingha Arachchige Mohan Sanathkumara 71/2 , Horton Colombo 7. d. Kshenuka Saparamdu 71/2 , Horton Colombo 7. e. Lalitha Boteju 12/2 , Puranavihara Balapokuna, Colombo 6. f. Nihal Illeperuma 56/12 , Circular Udumulla Road, Battaramulla. g. Marja Van Leeuwan Stitching Weeshuis, Meer En Bosalaan 106 , 2554 GA Den Haag, the Netherlands. h. S.J Pahud de Mortanges Kroes Stitching Weeshuis, Meer En Bosalaan 106 , 2554 GA Den Haag, The Netherlands. The trustees of Somawathi Saparamadu Trust 11 . Dr. Uditha Rajapathirana 9 , Papiliyana Papiliyana, Nugegoda. (Guardian ad litem of the 8 th and 9 th Respondents Minors) RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice S. Thurairaja, PC 📄 Download
06 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/82/2021
Villa Ranmanika (Pvt) Limited, Galle Road, Ahungalla. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT Vs. Vedikkara Dulsi Renuka De Silva, Middaramulla, Ahungalla. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT Villa Ranmanika (Pvt) Limited, Galle Road, Ahungalla. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT Vs. Vedikkara Dulsi Renuka De Silva, Middaramulla, Ahungalla. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere 📄 Download
06 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/136/2015
L. J. Abeywickrema, 388/4, Araliya Gardens, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya APPLICANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT Vs. Bartleet and Company Limited, 65, Braybrook Place, Colombo 2. RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT L. J. Abeywickrema, 388/4, Araliya Gardens, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya APPLICANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT Vs. Bartleet and Company Limited, 65, Braybrook Place, Colombo 2. RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere 📄 Download
06 Mar 2026 SC/FR/396/2019
Balasuriyage Wickramaratne No.486/2, Polgaslanda road, Mandawala. Petitioner Vs. 1. Mr. P.H. Manathunga Chairman National Police Commission Block No. 9, BMICH Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 2. Mr. K. Karunaharan 3. Mr. Dilshan Kapila Jayasooriya 4. Mr. A.A.M. Illias 5. Mr. Jayantha Jayasinghe All members of the National Police Commission, Block No. 9, BMICH Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 6. Ms. Tamara D Perera Secretary National Police Commission, Block No. 9, BMICH Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 7. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 8. Mr. Sanath J. Ediriweera, Chairman, Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 9. Mr. N. H. M. Chithrananda 10. Mr. G. S. A. De Silva PC 11. Dr. A. D. N. De Zoysa 12. Mrs. S. M. Mohomed 13. Mrs. Ranjani Nadarajapillai 14. Mr. M. B. R. Pushpakumara 15. Prof. N. Selvakkumaran All members of the Public Service Commission No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 16. Ms. W. H. M. M. C. K. Dayarathne, Secretary Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 17. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents Balasuriyage Wickramaratne No.486/2, Polgaslanda road, Mandawala. Petitioner Vs. 1. Mr. P.H. Manathunga Chairman National Police Commission Block No. 9, BMICH Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 2. Mr. K. Karunaharan 3. Mr. Dilshan Kapila Jayasooriya 4. Mr. A.A.M. Illias 5. Mr. Jayantha Jayasinghe All members of the National Police Commission, Block No. 9, BMICH Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 6. Ms. Tamara D Perera Secretary National Police Commission, Block No. 9, BMICH Premises, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 7. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 8. Mr. Sanath J. Ediriweera, Chairman, Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 9. Mr. N. H. M. Chithrananda 10. Mr. G. S. A. De Silva PC 11. Dr. A. D. N. De Zoysa 12. Mrs. S. M. Mohomed 13. Mrs. Ranjani Nadarajapillai 14. Mr. M. B. R. Pushpakumara 15. Prof. N. Selvakkumaran All members of the Public Service Commission No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 16. Ms. W. H. M. M. C. K. Dayarathne, Secretary Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 17. The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
06 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/7/2014
1. Sri Lanka Telecom PLC Head Office, Lotus Road Colombo 01 2. U. Ananda Illeperuma, Regional Manager, Sri Lanka Telecom PLC, No 08, Galawala Road, Wakwella Road, Galle Petitioner-Appellants Vs. 1. A.L.A.A. Siriwardena Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 1a. B.M. Chandra Siri Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle 1b. Chandima Muhandiramge Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 1c. P. Edirisinghe Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 1d. Ranil Wickremasekara Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 2. H.K. Hemalatha Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 2a. D.W. Sahabandu Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 2b. A.V. Mendis Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 2c. T.E.U. Mendis Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 2d. D.V. Dilini Sumali, Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 3. W. Kelum Seneviratne Former Mayor, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 4. Methsiri De Silva Mayor, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 4a. Fouzul Niyaz Mayor, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 4b. Weeranarayana Kelum Senevirathna Acting Mayor, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle 4c. Priyantha G. Sahabandu Mayor, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 5. Galle Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle 1. Sri Lanka Telecom PLC Head Office, Lotus Road Colombo 01 2. U. Ananda Illeperuma, Regional Manager, Sri Lanka Telecom PLC, No 08, Galawala Road, Wakwella Road, Galle Petitioner-Appellants Vs. 1. A.L.A.A. Siriwardena Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 1a. B.M. Chandra Siri Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle 1b. Chandima Muhandiramge Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 1c. P. Edirisinghe Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 1d. Ranil Wickremasekara Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 2. H.K. Hemalatha Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 2a. D.W. Sahabandu Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 2b. A.V. Mendis Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 2c. T.E.U. Mendis Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 2d. D.V. Dilini Sumali, Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 3. W. Kelum Seneviratne Former Mayor, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 4. Methsiri De Silva Mayor, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 4a. Fouzul Niyaz Mayor, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 4b. Weeranarayana Kelum Senevirathna Acting Mayor, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle 4c. Priyantha G. Sahabandu Mayor, Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle. 5. Galle Municipal Council, Town Hall, Galle
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe 📄 Download
06 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/15/2014
Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No. 109, Rotunda Tower, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Petitioner- Appellant Vs. 1. Commissioner of Labour Department of Labour, Colombo 05. 2. C. Waniganayake, Assistant Commissioner of Labour- Colombo West, 5th Floor, Department of Labour, Colombo 05. 3. W.S.M Boteju No. 08, Kolonnawa Road, Wellampitiya Respondents-Respondents Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, No. 109, Rotunda Tower, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Petitioner- Appellant Vs. 1. Commissioner of Labour Department of Labour, Colombo 05. 2. C. Waniganayake, Assistant Commissioner of Labour- Colombo West, 5th Floor, Department of Labour, Colombo 05. 3. W.S.M Boteju No. 08, Kolonnawa Road, Wellampitiya Respondents-Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe 📄 Download
06 Mar 2026 SC/FR/127/2012
L.W. Sameera Sampath, Katukurundu Gahalanda, Pothuwila, Payagala. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Pathmakumara Officer-in-Charge (Crime), 2. Chaminda Kulasinghe Officer-in Charge The 1st and 2nd Respondents of : Police Station, Payagala 3. PC 73440, Hospital Police Post, Panadura Base Hospital , Panadura 4. Inspector General of Police; Sri Lanka Police Department, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 5. Hon. The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulfsdrop, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS L.W. Sameera Sampath, Katukurundu Gahalanda, Pothuwila, Payagala. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Pathmakumara Officer-in-Charge (Crime), 2. Chaminda Kulasinghe Officer-in Charge The 1st and 2nd Respondents of : Police Station, Payagala 3. PC 73440, Hospital Police Post, Panadura Base Hospital , Panadura 4. Inspector General of Police; Sri Lanka Police Department, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 5. Hon. The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulfsdrop, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe 📄 Download
06 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/58/2019
Hewage Lionel Gunarathne, Sirideranawatte, No. 48/20, Randawana Road, Yakkala. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER vs Hemal Ashmore Peiris, No. 10, Austin Place, Colombo 08. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT Hewage Lionel Gunarathne, Sirideranawatte, No. 48/20, Randawana Road, Yakkala. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-PETITIONER vs Hemal Ashmore Peiris, No. 10, Austin Place, Colombo 08. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath K. B. Wijeratne 📄 Download
05 Mar 2026 SC/FR/181/2021
1. Gamage Don Yasasvin Hemantha Kumara Sudasinghe, No. 430/2B, Sunethradevi Road, Kohuwala, Nugegoda. 2. Iresha Menike Jayathilake Banda, No. 54, Samudrasanna Road, Mount Lavinia. 3. Jayalath Arrachchige Dona Hasanthi Jayalath, Udaya, Halpita, Polgasowita. 4. Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Susantha Rathnayake, No. 311/07, Hettiyadeniya Road, Gampaha. 5. Mannapperuma Mudiyanselage Premasiri Anura Bandara, No. 45/1, 1st Lane, Pengirigaswatta Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. S. H. Munasinghe, Secretary, Ministry of Health, Suwasiripaya, No. 385, Rev. Baddegana Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 1A. Janaka Sugathadasa, Secretary, Ministry of Health, Suwasiripaya, No. 385, Rev. Baddegana Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 1AA. Dr. P. G. Mahipala, Secretary, Ministry of Health, Suwasiripaya, No. 385, Rev. Baddegana Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Ayanthi Karunaratne, Acting Director/Tertiary Care, Ministry of Health, Suwasiripaya, No. 385, Rev. Baddegana Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. Anver Hamdani, Previous Acting Director/Tertiary Care, Ministry of Health, Suwasiripaya, No. 385, Rev. Baddegana Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. AND OTHERS 1. Gamage Don Yasasvin Hemantha Kumara Sudasinghe, No. 430/2B, Sunethradevi Road, Kohuwala, Nugegoda. 2. Iresha Menike Jayathilake Banda, No. 54, Samudrasanna Road, Mount Lavinia. 3. Jayalath Arrachchige Dona Hasanthi Jayalath, Udaya, Halpita, Polgasowita. 4. Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Susantha Rathnayake, No. 311/07, Hettiyadeniya Road, Gampaha. 5. Mannapperuma Mudiyanselage Premasiri Anura Bandara, No. 45/1, 1st Lane, Pengirigaswatta Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. S. H. Munasinghe, Secretary, Ministry of Health, Suwasiripaya, No. 385, Rev. Baddegana Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 1A. Janaka Sugathadasa, Secretary, Ministry of Health, Suwasiripaya, No. 385, Rev. Baddegana Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 1AA. Dr. P. G. Mahipala, Secretary, Ministry of Health, Suwasiripaya, No. 385, Rev. Baddegana Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 2. Ayanthi Karunaratne, Acting Director/Tertiary Care, Ministry of Health, Suwasiripaya, No. 385, Rev. Baddegana Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. 3. Anver Hamdani, Previous Acting Director/Tertiary Care, Ministry of Health, Suwasiripaya, No. 385, Rev. Baddegana Wimalawansa Thero Mawatha, Colombo 10. AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon 📄 Download
05 Mar 2026 SC/FR/82/2017
S. Samarakoon, No. A8/2/1, Mangala Road, Alwitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. 2. S.J.P. Samankumara, No. 30/08, Kobbawela, Mahara, Gampola. 3. L.Y.A.D. Chandrapala, I-01, Police Quarters, Anderson Flats, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 4. D.U.L. Rathnayake, No. 2/4, Police Quarters, Maligawatta. 5. K.W.G. Thusharasena, No. 217/15/D/3, Meegahawatta, Delgoda. 6. K.D.B. Senadheera, No. 267/1, Erwwala Road, Pannipitiya. 7. R.M.N. Rathnayake, No. 42/2, Kalugahawatta Road, Maharagama. 8. R. Indrananda, No. 202/21, Palugama, Dompe. 9. H.M.N.N. Herath “Deshapriya Wasa” Diddeniyawatta, 01 Stage, Dambokka, Boyagane. 10. T.H.E.L. Perera, No. 297B, Thimbirigaskatuwa Road, Dalupotha, Negambo. 11. I.C.U.I. Kandewaththa, No. 675/10A, Dehigamawatta Road, Meepitiya, Kegalle. 12. U.D. Alawatta, No. 593/86, Gabadawatta 3, Pitipana North, Homagama. 13. C.V. Sirimanna, Danovita Road, Thawalanpitiya, Meerigama. 14. M.R.S. Wijayasena No. 20/6, Alagupitiya, 1st Lane, Vilbawa, Dewala Road, Jayanthipura Road, Kurunagala. 15. H.C. Ovitigama, No.177/7, Kalapaluwawa, Rajagiriya. 16. M.L.A.N. Weerasinghe, “Hemantha”, Keppetipola. 17. S.A.P.K. Dayananda No. 155/1, Halagama. Gampaha. 18. W.W. Lakshman, No. 258/3/4, Kirikittamulla Road, Yakkala. AND OTHERS S. Samarakoon, No. A8/2/1, Mangala Road, Alwitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. 2. S.J.P. Samankumara, No. 30/08, Kobbawela, Mahara, Gampola. 3. L.Y.A.D. Chandrapala, I-01, Police Quarters, Anderson Flats, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 4. D.U.L. Rathnayake, No. 2/4, Police Quarters, Maligawatta. 5. K.W.G. Thusharasena, No. 217/15/D/3, Meegahawatta, Delgoda. 6. K.D.B. Senadheera, No. 267/1, Erwwala Road, Pannipitiya. 7. R.M.N. Rathnayake, No. 42/2, Kalugahawatta Road, Maharagama. 8. R. Indrananda, No. 202/21, Palugama, Dompe. 9. H.M.N.N. Herath “Deshapriya Wasa” Diddeniyawatta, 01 Stage, Dambokka, Boyagane. 10. T.H.E.L. Perera, No. 297B, Thimbirigaskatuwa Road, Dalupotha, Negambo. 11. I.C.U.I. Kandewaththa, No. 675/10A, Dehigamawatta Road, Meepitiya, Kegalle. 12. U.D. Alawatta, No. 593/86, Gabadawatta 3, Pitipana North, Homagama. 13. C.V. Sirimanna, Danovita Road, Thawalanpitiya, Meerigama. 14. M.R.S. Wijayasena No. 20/6, Alagupitiya, 1st Lane, Vilbawa, Dewala Road, Jayanthipura Road, Kurunagala. 15. H.C. Ovitigama, No.177/7, Kalapaluwawa, Rajagiriya. 16. M.L.A.N. Weerasinghe, “Hemantha”, Keppetipola. 17. S.A.P.K. Dayananda No. 155/1, Halagama. Gampaha. 18. W.W. Lakshman, No. 258/3/4, Kirikittamulla Road, Yakkala. AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath K. B. Wijeratne 📄 Download
04 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/41/2024
1. Medawalal Lekamalage Sujatha Medawala, Nape, Nelundeniya. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTAPPELLANT Vs. 1. Medawala Lekamalage Laxman Medawala. Madawala, Wathura. 2. Medawala Lekamalage Nirodhi Lakmali Medawala. Madawala, Wathura. 3. Medawala Lekamalage Shashanika Chathumali Medawala. Madawala, Wathura. DEFENDANT-APPELLANTRESPONDENTS 1. Medawalal Lekamalage Sujatha Medawala, Nape, Nelundeniya. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTAPPELLANT Vs. 1. Medawala Lekamalage Laxman Medawala. Madawala, Wathura. 2. Medawala Lekamalage Nirodhi Lakmali Medawala. Madawala, Wathura. 3. Medawala Lekamalage Shashanika Chathumali Medawala. Madawala, Wathura. DEFENDANT-APPELLANTRESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne 📄 Download
04 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/109/2022
Pan Asia Banking Corporation PLC, No. 450, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 3RD DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT -Vs- 1A. Abdul Rasheed Hawwa Umma, 1B. Ahamned Yoosuf Anfaz Ahamed, 1C. Fathima Banu 1A to 1C PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER-RESPONDENTS 1. Mohamed Imran Razak, No. 59, Bathiya Mawatha, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. 2. Mohamed Shahid Imran, No. 59, Bathiya Mawatha, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS Pan Asia Banking Corporation PLC, No. 450, Galle Road, Colombo 03. 3RD DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT -Vs- 1A. Abdul Rasheed Hawwa Umma, 1B. Ahamned Yoosuf Anfaz Ahamed, 1C. Fathima Banu 1A to 1C PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER-RESPONDENTS 1. Mohamed Imran Razak, No. 59, Bathiya Mawatha, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. 2. Mohamed Shahid Imran, No. 59, Bathiya Mawatha, Kalubowila, Dehiwala. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice S. Thurairaja, PC 📄 Download
04 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/41/2024
Medawalal Lekamalage Sujatha Medawala, Nape, Nelundeniya. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTAPPELLANT Vs. 1. Medawala Lekamalage Laxman Medawala. Madawala, Wathura. 2. Medawala Lekamalage Nirodhi Lakmali Medawala. Madawala, Wathura. 3. Medawala Lekamalage Shashanika Chathumali Medawala. Madawala, Wathura. DEFENDANT-APPELLANTRESPONDENTS Medawalal Lekamalage Sujatha Medawala, Nape, Nelundeniya. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTAPPELLANT Vs. 1. Medawala Lekamalage Laxman Medawala. Madawala, Wathura. 2. Medawala Lekamalage Nirodhi Lakmali Medawala. Madawala, Wathura. 3. Medawala Lekamalage Shashanika Chathumali Medawala. Madawala, Wathura. DEFENDANT-APPELLANTRESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne 📄 Download
04 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/38/2025
Binal Investment (Pvt) Ltd. No. 91/A, Pirivena Road, Molligoda, Wadduwa. 3rd DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER vs 1. Mahesh Hewagama 2. Manthri Hewage Nayani Fernando Both of ‘Akinda’ Sama Uyana Mawatha Duwa Temple Road, Kalutara South. PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS 1. Senhiru Lands & Credit (Pvt) Ltd, Malegoda Road, Galawila, Rendapola, Dodangoda. 2. Senhiru Micro Credit (Pvt) Ltd Malegoda Road, Galawila, Rendapola, Dodangoda. 4. National Trust Bank No. 242, Union Place Colombo 2 DEFENDANTS-REPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS Binal Investment (Pvt) Ltd. No. 91/A, Pirivena Road, Molligoda, Wadduwa. 3rd DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER vs 1. Mahesh Hewagama 2. Manthri Hewage Nayani Fernando Both of ‘Akinda’ Sama Uyana Mawatha Duwa Temple Road, Kalutara South. PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS 1. Senhiru Lands & Credit (Pvt) Ltd, Malegoda Road, Galawila, Rendapola, Dodangoda. 2. Senhiru Micro Credit (Pvt) Ltd Malegoda Road, Galawila, Rendapola, Dodangoda. 4. National Trust Bank No. 242, Union Place Colombo 2 DEFENDANTS-REPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath K. B. Wijeratne 📄 Download
04 Mar 2026 SC/MICS/1/2016
1. W. Sudarman Gunarathna No. 490/1, Huladduwa, Gatahatta. 2. K.A. Ranaweera Near the Police Station of Avissawella, Avissawella. Appellants V. 1. National Gem and Jewellery Authority, No. 25, Galleface Terrace, Colombo 3. 2. S.M. Piyathissa, Secretary, State Ministry of Gem and Jewellery, Related Industries, No. 561/3, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. 4. R. A. Dharmarathna Uduwaka, Galahatta 5. R.A. Kumarasiri, “Nimali”, Thorangoda, Ehaliyagoda. 1. W. Sudarman Gunarathna No. 490/1, Huladduwa, Gatahatta. 2. K.A. Ranaweera Near the Police Station of Avissawella, Avissawella. Appellants V. 1. National Gem and Jewellery Authority, No. 25, Galleface Terrace, Colombo 3. 2. S.M. Piyathissa, Secretary, State Ministry of Gem and Jewellery, Related Industries, No. 561/3, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 05. 4. R. A. Dharmarathna Uduwaka, Galahatta 5. R.A. Kumarasiri, “Nimali”, Thorangoda, Ehaliyagoda.
⚖ Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando 📄 Download
03 Mar 2026 SC/FR/168/2024
Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Tharindu Amila Uduwaragedera, Jayasewana, Bandarawela Road, Ettampitiya. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Sameera Madushanka Ranasinghe, Sub Inspector of Police, Borella Police Station. Police Station Road, Borella. 2. Amila Bulathsinhala (70648), Police Constable, Borella Police Station, Police Station Road, Borella. 3. Janaka Withanage, Chief Inspector, Officer in Charge, Borella Police Station, Police Station Road, Borella. 4. A.G.J. Chandrakumara, Deputy Inspector General, Colombo District, Sri Lanka Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 5. T.M.W.D Tennakoon, (former) Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police, Western Province. Currently Inspector General of Police, Sri Lanka Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 6. Mr. C.D. Wickramarathne, (former) Inspector General of Police, Sri Lanka Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Tharindu Amila Uduwaragedera, Jayasewana, Bandarawela Road, Ettampitiya. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Sameera Madushanka Ranasinghe, Sub Inspector of Police, Borella Police Station. Police Station Road, Borella. 2. Amila Bulathsinhala (70648), Police Constable, Borella Police Station, Police Station Road, Borella. 3. Janaka Withanage, Chief Inspector, Officer in Charge, Borella Police Station, Police Station Road, Borella. 4. A.G.J. Chandrakumara, Deputy Inspector General, Colombo District, Sri Lanka Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 5. T.M.W.D Tennakoon, (former) Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police, Western Province. Currently Inspector General of Police, Sri Lanka Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 6. Mr. C.D. Wickramarathne, (former) Inspector General of Police, Sri Lanka Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon 📄 Download
03 Mar 2026 SC/APPEAL/1/2016
Saranasin Patabandigei Jayatissa (Now Deceased) Puhulgaya Road, Ambalanthota. 1st PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT 1a. Loku Yaddehige Malani Chandralatha, Puhulyaya Road, Ambalanthota. 1b. Saranasin Patabandigei Damith Chaminda Puhulyaya Road, Ambalanthota. 1c. Saranasin Patabandigei Manjula Priyadarshani, Puhulyaya Road, Ambalanthota. 1d. Saranasin Patabandigei Nirosh Shaminda, Puhulyaya Road, Ambalanthota. 1e. Saranasin Patabandigei Sanjula Prasadini, Puhulyaya Road, Ambalanthota. 1f. Saranasin Patabandigei Osani Sajeewani, Puhulyaya Road, Ambalanthota. SUBSTITUTED 1a-1f PLAINTIFF-APPEALLANT-PETITIONER-APPELLANTS vs 2. Saranasin Patabandigei Sirisena (Deceased) Malpettawa, Ambalanthota. 2a. Saranasin Patabandigei Palika, No. 917/1C, Agirikula Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. SUBSTITUTED 2a PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT- PETITIONER-APPELLANT vs Saranasin Patabandigei Justin (Deceased) Karagasara, Kudabolana, Ambalanthota. Saranasin Patabandigei Jayasena, Karagasara, Kudabolana, Ambalanthota. SUBTITUTED DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT Saranasin Patabandigei Jayatissa (Now Deceased) Puhulgaya Road, Ambalanthota. 1st PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-PETITIONER-APPELLANT 1a. Loku Yaddehige Malani Chandralatha, Puhulyaya Road, Ambalanthota. 1b. Saranasin Patabandigei Damith Chaminda Puhulyaya Road, Ambalanthota. 1c. Saranasin Patabandigei Manjula Priyadarshani, Puhulyaya Road, Ambalanthota. 1d. Saranasin Patabandigei Nirosh Shaminda, Puhulyaya Road, Ambalanthota. 1e. Saranasin Patabandigei Sanjula Prasadini, Puhulyaya Road, Ambalanthota. 1f. Saranasin Patabandigei Osani Sajeewani, Puhulyaya Road, Ambalanthota. SUBSTITUTED 1a-1f PLAINTIFF-APPEALLANT-PETITIONER-APPELLANTS vs 2. Saranasin Patabandigei Sirisena (Deceased) Malpettawa, Ambalanthota. 2a. Saranasin Patabandigei Palika, No. 917/1C, Agirikula Road, Kottawa, Pannipitiya. SUBSTITUTED 2a PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT- PETITIONER-APPELLANT vs Saranasin Patabandigei Justin (Deceased) Karagasara, Kudabolana, Ambalanthota. Saranasin Patabandigei Jayasena, Karagasara, Kudabolana, Ambalanthota. SUBTITUTED DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath K. B. Wijeratne 📄 Download
27 Feb 2026 SC/FR/309/2014
1. D.M. Yahampath No.6A, Sadu Mawatha, Neelammahara Road, Godigamuwa, Maharagama 2. K.P.D.Prabhath Sirisena No 310, Kandewatta, Pinnawala 3. P.N.Ranaweera No. 305/7, Palan Watta, Pannipitiya 4. I.M.N.Dissanayaka ‘Rathnawasa’ Thammattagama, Mahawa 5. K.Sunil No.242 C, Mawathagama, Padukka 6. A.D.Nimalsiri No 33/66, Gaminipura, Meegoda. 7. H.M.K.C.Bandara No. 32, Paliyapana, Poorikaduwa, Menikhinna 8. S.M.S.B.Samarakone No 386, Rathmalkatuwa 9. H.D.R.A.Jayaratne, 116, ‘Shanthi’ Mudungoda, Gampaha 10. D.W Peries No.30, Keselwatta, Panadura 11. A.M.P. Adhikari No 742, Naththandiya Road, Marawila. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Vocational Training Authority of Sri Lanka, 4th Floor, No 354/2, Elvitigala Mawatha, Narahenpita 2. S.R.P.Rathnayaka Former Chairman, Vocational Training Authority of Sri Lanka, No 354/2, Elvitigala Mawatha, Narahenpita 3. Manoja Pathirana, Former Chairman, Vocational Training Authority of Sri Lanka, No 354/2, Elvitigala Mawatha, Narahenpita and Others 1. D.M. Yahampath No.6A, Sadu Mawatha, Neelammahara Road, Godigamuwa, Maharagama 2. K.P.D.Prabhath Sirisena No 310, Kandewatta, Pinnawala 3. P.N.Ranaweera No. 305/7, Palan Watta, Pannipitiya 4. I.M.N.Dissanayaka ‘Rathnawasa’ Thammattagama, Mahawa 5. K.Sunil No.242 C, Mawathagama, Padukka 6. A.D.Nimalsiri No 33/66, Gaminipura, Meegoda. 7. H.M.K.C.Bandara No. 32, Paliyapana, Poorikaduwa, Menikhinna 8. S.M.S.B.Samarakone No 386, Rathmalkatuwa 9. H.D.R.A.Jayaratne, 116, ‘Shanthi’ Mudungoda, Gampaha 10. D.W Peries No.30, Keselwatta, Panadura 11. A.M.P. Adhikari No 742, Naththandiya Road, Marawila. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Vocational Training Authority of Sri Lanka, 4th Floor, No 354/2, Elvitigala Mawatha, Narahenpita 2. S.R.P.Rathnayaka Former Chairman, Vocational Training Authority of Sri Lanka, No 354/2, Elvitigala Mawatha, Narahenpita 3. Manoja Pathirana, Former Chairman, Vocational Training Authority of Sri Lanka, No 354/2, Elvitigala Mawatha, Narahenpita and Others
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe 📄 Download
27 Feb 2026 SC/FR/391/2013
3. Manoja Pathirana, Former Chairman, Vocational Training Authority of Sri Lanka, No 354/2, Elvitigala Mawatha, Narahenpita PETITIONER Vs. 1. Colombo Municipal Council, Town Hall, Colombo 07 2. J.M.Bhadrani Jayawardena, Municipal Commissioner, Colombo Municipal Council Town Hall, Colombo 07 2A. V.K.A. Anura, Municipal Commissioner, Colombo Municipal Council, Town Hall, Colombo 07. 2B.L.R.L.Wickremaratne, Municipal Commissioner, Colombo Municipal Council, Townhall, Colombo 07 2C.Roshanie Dissanayake, Municipal Commissioner, Colombo Municipal Council, Townhall, Colombo 07 (SUBSTITUTED 2C RESPONDENT) 3.Governor, Secretariat of the Governor Western Province, No 98/4, Havelock Road, Colombo 05 4.Chandrani Samarakoon, Commissioner of Local Government, Department of Local Government(Western Province), Independence Square, Colombo 07 4A.Kasun Apa Senevirathne, Commissioner of Local Government, Department of Local Government(Western Province), Independence Square, Colombo 07. (SUBSTITUTED 4A RESPONDENT) 5. V.Rajapakshe, Secretary, Provincial Public Service Commission(Western Province), Independence Square, Colombo 07. 5A.M.G.A.Thilakerathne, Secretary, Provincial Public Service Commission(Western Province), Independence Square, Colombo 07 5B.Thilak Senarath, Secretary, Provincial Public Service Commission(Western Province), Independence Square , Colombo 07. (SUBSTITUTED 5B RESPONDENT) 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS 3. Manoja Pathirana, Former Chairman, Vocational Training Authority of Sri Lanka, No 354/2, Elvitigala Mawatha, Narahenpita PETITIONER Vs. 1. Colombo Municipal Council, Town Hall, Colombo 07 2. J.M.Bhadrani Jayawardena, Municipal Commissioner, Colombo Municipal Council Town Hall, Colombo 07 2A. V.K.A. Anura, Municipal Commissioner, Colombo Municipal Council, Town Hall, Colombo 07. 2B.L.R.L.Wickremaratne, Municipal Commissioner, Colombo Municipal Council, Townhall, Colombo 07 2C.Roshanie Dissanayake, Municipal Commissioner, Colombo Municipal Council, Townhall, Colombo 07 (SUBSTITUTED 2C RESPONDENT) 3.Governor, Secretariat of the Governor Western Province, No 98/4, Havelock Road, Colombo 05 4.Chandrani Samarakoon, Commissioner of Local Government, Department of Local Government(Western Province), Independence Square, Colombo 07 4A.Kasun Apa Senevirathne, Commissioner of Local Government, Department of Local Government(Western Province), Independence Square, Colombo 07. (SUBSTITUTED 4A RESPONDENT) 5. V.Rajapakshe, Secretary, Provincial Public Service Commission(Western Province), Independence Square, Colombo 07. 5A.M.G.A.Thilakerathne, Secretary, Provincial Public Service Commission(Western Province), Independence Square, Colombo 07 5B.Thilak Senarath, Secretary, Provincial Public Service Commission(Western Province), Independence Square , Colombo 07. (SUBSTITUTED 5B RESPONDENT) 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe 📄 Download
27 Feb 2026 SC/FR/16/2024
Sooriyagoda Rathambegoda Pitiyegedara Lahiru Madushanka, No. 718/7, Yatihena, Malwana. Petitioner Vs. 1. Deshabandu Thennakoon, Inspector General of Police (Acting), Police Headquarters, Colombo. 2. Ajith Wijesingha, Chief Inspector of Police, Officer in Charge, Police Station – Biyagama, Biyagama. 3. Gamage, Sub Inspector of Police, Officer in Charge- Crime Branch, Police Station – Biyagama, Biyagama. 4. Jayawardana Police Constable (95623), Police Station – Biyagama, Biyagama. 5. Jayasingha, Police Constable (103658), Police Station – Biyagama, Biyagama. 6. Rajapaksha, Police Station – Biyagama, Biyagama. 7. The Honourable Attorney General, Department of the Attorney General, Colombo 12. Respondents Sooriyagoda Rathambegoda Pitiyegedara Lahiru Madushanka, No. 718/7, Yatihena, Malwana. Petitioner Vs. 1. Deshabandu Thennakoon, Inspector General of Police (Acting), Police Headquarters, Colombo. 2. Ajith Wijesingha, Chief Inspector of Police, Officer in Charge, Police Station – Biyagama, Biyagama. 3. Gamage, Sub Inspector of Police, Officer in Charge- Crime Branch, Police Station – Biyagama, Biyagama. 4. Jayawardana Police Constable (95623), Police Station – Biyagama, Biyagama. 5. Jayasingha, Police Constable (103658), Police Station – Biyagama, Biyagama. 6. Rajapaksha, Police Station – Biyagama, Biyagama. 7. The Honourable Attorney General, Department of the Attorney General, Colombo 12. Respondents
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
27 Feb 2026 SC/FR/210/2016
Dinesh Rajeewa Hettiarachchi, No.166/3, Abeyratne Mawatha, Boralasgamuwa. Petitioner Vs. 1. Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 2. DIG, Mathurata Field Force Headquarters Currently C/O Police Headquarters Colombo 01. 3. Nuwan Wedasinghe, Director CCD, Colombo Crime Division, No. 216, Kolonnawa Road, Dematagoda. Currently C/O Police Headquarters Colombo 01. 4. ASP Keerti Bandara (Admin.) Colombo Crime Division, No. 216, Kolonnawa Road, Dematagoda. Currently C/O Police Headquarters Colombo 01. 5. ASP Jayatilleke (In charge of Unit 06,) Colombo Crimes Division, No. 216, Kolonnawa Road, Dematagoda. Currently C/O Police Headquarters Colombo 01. and Others Dinesh Rajeewa Hettiarachchi, No.166/3, Abeyratne Mawatha, Boralasgamuwa. Petitioner Vs. 1. Inspector General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 2. DIG, Mathurata Field Force Headquarters Currently C/O Police Headquarters Colombo 01. 3. Nuwan Wedasinghe, Director CCD, Colombo Crime Division, No. 216, Kolonnawa Road, Dematagoda. Currently C/O Police Headquarters Colombo 01. 4. ASP Keerti Bandara (Admin.) Colombo Crime Division, No. 216, Kolonnawa Road, Dematagoda. Currently C/O Police Headquarters Colombo 01. 5. ASP Jayatilleke (In charge of Unit 06,) Colombo Crimes Division, No. 216, Kolonnawa Road, Dematagoda. Currently C/O Police Headquarters Colombo 01. and Others
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
27 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/204/2014
Herath Mudiyanselage Piyasena alias Herath Mudiyanselage Piyasena Kaluhendiwela, Wessagiriya, Kaluhendiwala, Thalwatte Gedera Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Polgahawela. 2. Commissioner General of Land, Land Commissioner General’s Department, No.7, Hector Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Lands and Land Development, Battaramulla. Both Presently at ‘Mihikatha Madura’, Land Secretariat, No.1200/6, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla Respondent-Respondents. Herath Mudiyanselage Piyasena alias Herath Mudiyanselage Piyasena Kaluhendiwela, Wessagiriya, Kaluhendiwala, Thalwatte Gedera Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Divisional Secretary, Divisional Secretariat, Polgahawela. 2. Commissioner General of Land, Land Commissioner General’s Department, No.7, Hector Kobbekaduwa Mawatha, Colombo 07. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Lands and Land Development, Battaramulla. Both Presently at ‘Mihikatha Madura’, Land Secretariat, No.1200/6, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla Respondent-Respondents.
⚖ Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli 📄 Download
26 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/197/2017
H.A.D. Samson Arthur Dharmawardena, (deceased) Molagoda. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT- APPELLANT 1A. Kusuma Welgama 1B. Buddhika Sampath 1C. Chandani Indika 1D. Chamila Buddhika Dharmawardena. All of: No. 192, Sampath Bakery, Molagoda, Kegalle. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT- APPELLANT-APPELLANTS Vs. 1. Abdul Hasan Mohamed Ameen, 2. Abdul Hasan Mohamed Sharook, Both of : No. 142, Molagoda. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENTS H.A.D. Samson Arthur Dharmawardena, (deceased) Molagoda. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT- APPELLANT 1A. Kusuma Welgama 1B. Buddhika Sampath 1C. Chandani Indika 1D. Chamila Buddhika Dharmawardena. All of: No. 192, Sampath Bakery, Molagoda, Kegalle. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT- APPELLANT-APPELLANTS Vs. 1. Abdul Hasan Mohamed Ameen, 2. Abdul Hasan Mohamed Sharook, Both of : No. 142, Molagoda. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon 📄 Download
26 Feb 2026 SC/FR/194/2017
B.R.P.R. Gunasena No 159/1, Pitakotuwa, Walbothale, Mirigama PETITIONER Vs. 1. Coconut Development Authority No. 54, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5 2. H.K. Udaya Rupasinghe Chairman, Coconut Development Authority No. 54, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5 2a. Jayantha Wickramasinghe, 2b. Keerthi Sri Weerasinghe, 2c. Prof. Roshan Perera, 2d. K.A. Shantha Sisira Kumara Ranatunga, Chairman, Coconut Development Authority No. 54, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5 3. P. Edirimanne, Deputy Director (Product Development) 4. S.W. Rasika Assistant Director 5. Yvonne Fernando Member of Board of Directors, 6. Dilani Karunaratne Assistant General Manager, The 3rd to 6th Respondents, all of, Coconut Development Authority, No 54, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 7. W. Thilakaratne Assistant Director Ministry of Plantation Indsutries, 11th Floor, Sethsiripaya Stage II, Battaramulla 8. K.W.Ranjith No 210/3, Kelanimulla, Mulleriyawa New Town 9. W.R. Priyangani No. 203, Urapona, Hunumulla 10. Attorney-General Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12 RESPONDENTS B.R.P.R. Gunasena No 159/1, Pitakotuwa, Walbothale, Mirigama PETITIONER Vs. 1. Coconut Development Authority No. 54, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5 2. H.K. Udaya Rupasinghe Chairman, Coconut Development Authority No. 54, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5 2a. Jayantha Wickramasinghe, 2b. Keerthi Sri Weerasinghe, 2c. Prof. Roshan Perera, 2d. K.A. Shantha Sisira Kumara Ranatunga, Chairman, Coconut Development Authority No. 54, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5 3. P. Edirimanne, Deputy Director (Product Development) 4. S.W. Rasika Assistant Director 5. Yvonne Fernando Member of Board of Directors, 6. Dilani Karunaratne Assistant General Manager, The 3rd to 6th Respondents, all of, Coconut Development Authority, No 54, Nawala Road, Narahenpita, Colombo 5. 7. W. Thilakaratne Assistant Director Ministry of Plantation Indsutries, 11th Floor, Sethsiripaya Stage II, Battaramulla 8. K.W.Ranjith No 210/3, Kelanimulla, Mulleriyawa New Town 9. W.R. Priyangani No. 203, Urapona, Hunumulla 10. Attorney-General Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12 RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 📄 Download
26 Feb 2026 SC/FR/255/2019
Mohammed Thufail Mohammed Milhan 41B Isnapulla Road, Dharga Town, Aluthgama. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Head Quarters Inspector Mount Lavinia Police Station Mount Lavinia. 2. Sub Inspector Ramanayake Mount Lavinia Police Station Mount Lavinia. 3. Sub Inspector Saliya Mount Lavinia Police Station Mount Lavinia. 4. Inspector General of Police Sri Lanka Police Headquarters Colombo 01. 5. Major General Ruwan Kulatunga Chief of National Intelligence National Intelligence Unit Colombo. 6. Secretary to the Ministry of Defence Ministry of Defence 5/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 7. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\\\'s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS Mohammed Thufail Mohammed Milhan 41B Isnapulla Road, Dharga Town, Aluthgama. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Head Quarters Inspector Mount Lavinia Police Station Mount Lavinia. 2. Sub Inspector Ramanayake Mount Lavinia Police Station Mount Lavinia. 3. Sub Inspector Saliya Mount Lavinia Police Station Mount Lavinia. 4. Inspector General of Police Sri Lanka Police Headquarters Colombo 01. 5. Major General Ruwan Kulatunga Chief of National Intelligence National Intelligence Unit Colombo. 6. Secretary to the Ministry of Defence Ministry of Defence 5/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 7. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\\\'s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna In the matter of an application in terms of Article 126 read with Article 17 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 📄 Download
26 Feb 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/19/2010
Sampath Bank PLC, Having its registered office at No. 110, Sir James Peiris Mawatha, Colombo 02. Having an office or branch at People’s Park, Bodhiraja Mawatha, Colombo 11. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Ceylon & Overseas Traders (Pvt)Ltd. No. 54, 4th Cross Street, Colombo 11. 2. Nellainayagam Eskiappan Tayumanasundaram 3. Nellainayagam Manickam Both of No.54, Cross Street, Colombo 11. Defendant-Respondents. Sampath Bank PLC, Having its registered office at No. 110, Sir James Peiris Mawatha, Colombo 02. Having an office or branch at People’s Park, Bodhiraja Mawatha, Colombo 11. Plaintiff-Appellant Vs. 1. Ceylon & Overseas Traders (Pvt)Ltd. No. 54, 4th Cross Street, Colombo 11. 2. Nellainayagam Eskiappan Tayumanasundaram 3. Nellainayagam Manickam Both of No.54, Cross Street, Colombo 11. Defendant-Respondents.
⚖ Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli In the High Court of the Western Province in the exercise of its civil jurisdiction sitting in Colombo. 📄 Download
26 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/33/2021
1a. Ven Ahungalle Wimaladhamma Thissa Samudraramaya, Dhammakusala Road, Egodamulla, Kosgoda. 1b. Ven Mulleriyawe Subhuthi, Neelamalikaramaya, Mulleriyawa 1 st PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTRESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Nalin Lal Nawulla, No. 114, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 1(a) Vishwa Sanka Naulla 1(b) Hewagamage Sriya Ranjanee 1(c) Vinudh Ranga Nawulla 1(d) Buddhini Niroshi Ruwanthika Nawulla. All of 114, Ward Place, Colombo 07 3. Hewagamage Sriya Ranjanee, No. 21/10, Base Line Road, Colombo 09. 3d(I)Vishwa Sanka Naulla 3d(II)Vinudh Ranga Nawulla 3d(III)Buddhini Niroshi Ruwanthika Nawulla All of No.114, Ward Place, Colombo 07. 1 ST AND 3RDDEFENDANTSPETITIONERS-APPELLANTSRESPONDENTS 1a. Ven Ahungalle Wimaladhamma Thissa Samudraramaya, Dhammakusala Road, Egodamulla, Kosgoda. 1b. Ven Mulleriyawe Subhuthi, Neelamalikaramaya, Mulleriyawa 1 st PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTRESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Nalin Lal Nawulla, No. 114, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 1(a) Vishwa Sanka Naulla 1(b) Hewagamage Sriya Ranjanee 1(c) Vinudh Ranga Nawulla 1(d) Buddhini Niroshi Ruwanthika Nawulla. All of 114, Ward Place, Colombo 07 3. Hewagamage Sriya Ranjanee, No. 21/10, Base Line Road, Colombo 09. 3d(I)Vishwa Sanka Naulla 3d(II)Vinudh Ranga Nawulla 3d(III)Buddhini Niroshi Ruwanthika Nawulla All of No.114, Ward Place, Colombo 07. 1 ST AND 3RDDEFENDANTSPETITIONERS-APPELLANTSRESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna 📄 Download
25 Feb 2026 SC/FR/23/2014
1. D.D. Matharaarachchi No. 189/1, 2nd Lane, Daham Mawatha, Palenwatta, Pannipitiya. 2. Sri Lanka Planning Service Association Ministry of Highways, 9th Floor, “Sethsiripaya”, Battaramulla. 3. Hewa Gamage Piyarathna No. 40/1/1, 2nd Lane, Gemunupura, Pelawatte, Pannipitiya. 4. Rajaye Ayurveda Waidya Niladareenge Sangamaya No. 130/10A, Samanala Place, Navinna, Maharagama. 5. W.A.K. Karunathilaka Research Officer, Nature Resource Management Centre, P.O. Box 52, Peradeniya. 6. Epa Kankanamge Premasiri Assistant Director, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. Petitioners vs. 1. P.B. Abeykoon Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 1A. J. Dadellage Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 1B. J.J. Rathnasiri Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 1C. N.M.P.K. Mayadunne Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 1D. N. Bandara Hapuhinne Former Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 1E. Pradeep Yasaratna Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 2. Dayasiri Fernando Former Chairman The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 2B. Sathya Hettige Former Chairman The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 2C. Dharmasena Dissanayake Former Chairman The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 2D. Jagath Balapatabendi Former Chairman The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 2E. Sanath J. Ediriweera Chairman The Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 3. S.C. Mannapperuma Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 3B. Kanthi Wijetunga Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 3C. A. Salam Abdual Waid Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 3D. Indrani Sugathdasa Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 3E. N.H.M. Chithrananda Member The Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 4. Ananda Seneviratne Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 4B. Sunil A. Sirisena Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 4C. D. Shirantha Wijayatilaka Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 4D. V. Sivagananasothi, Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 4E. G.S.A. de silva Member The Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 5. N.H. Pathirana Former Member No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 5B. L.N. Soyza Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 5C. Prathap Ramanujam, Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 5D. V. Sivagananasotji Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 5E. A.D.N. de Zoysa Member The Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6. Palitha M. Kumarasinghe Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 6A. V. Jegarasasingam, Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. AND OTHERS 1. D.D. Matharaarachchi No. 189/1, 2nd Lane, Daham Mawatha, Palenwatta, Pannipitiya. 2. Sri Lanka Planning Service Association Ministry of Highways, 9th Floor, “Sethsiripaya”, Battaramulla. 3. Hewa Gamage Piyarathna No. 40/1/1, 2nd Lane, Gemunupura, Pelawatte, Pannipitiya. 4. Rajaye Ayurveda Waidya Niladareenge Sangamaya No. 130/10A, Samanala Place, Navinna, Maharagama. 5. W.A.K. Karunathilaka Research Officer, Nature Resource Management Centre, P.O. Box 52, Peradeniya. 6. Epa Kankanamge Premasiri Assistant Director, Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla. Petitioners vs. 1. P.B. Abeykoon Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 1A. J. Dadellage Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 1B. J.J. Rathnasiri Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 1C. N.M.P.K. Mayadunne Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 1D. N. Bandara Hapuhinne Former Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 1E. Pradeep Yasaratna Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 2. Dayasiri Fernando Former Chairman The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 2B. Sathya Hettige Former Chairman The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 2C. Dharmasena Dissanayake Former Chairman The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 2D. Jagath Balapatabendi Former Chairman The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 2E. Sanath J. Ediriweera Chairman The Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 3. S.C. Mannapperuma Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 3B. Kanthi Wijetunga Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 3C. A. Salam Abdual Waid Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 3D. Indrani Sugathdasa Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 3E. N.H.M. Chithrananda Member The Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 4. Ananda Seneviratne Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 4B. Sunil A. Sirisena Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 4C. D. Shirantha Wijayatilaka Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 4D. V. Sivagananasothi, Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 4E. G.S.A. de silva Member The Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 5. N.H. Pathirana Former Member No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 5B. L.N. Soyza Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 5C. Prathap Ramanujam, Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 5D. V. Sivagananasotji Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 5E. A.D.N. de Zoysa Member The Public Service Commission, No. 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 6. Palitha M. Kumarasinghe Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. 6A. V. Jegarasasingam, Former Member The Public Service Commission, No. 177, Nawala Road, Narahenpita. AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon. Justice Yasantha Kodagoda, PC In the nature of a Fundamental Rights Application invoking the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 126 read with 17 of the Constitution. 📄 Download
25 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/54/2018
1a. Gamage Siriyawathie 1b. Meregngnage Dinesha Sanjeewani Salgadu 1c. Meregngnage Nadeesha Dilhani Salgadu 1d. Meregngnage Sadun Kanchana Salgadu All of No.10, Uyan Kele Cross Road, Panadura Substituted- Defendant-Respondent- Appellants Vs. Sellapperuma Thilakasiri Fernando of No.12, Nirmala Mawatha Panadura. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 1a. Gamage Siriyawathie 1b. Meregngnage Dinesha Sanjeewani Salgadu 1c. Meregngnage Nadeesha Dilhani Salgadu 1d. Meregngnage Sadun Kanchana Salgadu All of No.10, Uyan Kele Cross Road, Panadura Substituted- Defendant-Respondent- Appellants Vs. Sellapperuma Thilakasiri Fernando of No.12, Nirmala Mawatha Panadura. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Section 5(C) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No19 of 1990 as amended by Act No.54 of 2006. 📄 Download
25 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/54/2020
Santhiyagu Chandana De Silva, 180, Polwatta, Ambalangoda. 5th Defendant-Respondent- Appellant Vs. 01. Walpita Gamage Danasiri Woodland Watta Gonapinuwala. 2nd Defendant-Appellant- Respondent 02. Mawanane Hewa Shantha Railway Quarters, Railway Station, Koggala Substituted-Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent. 03. Kathaladuwa Bulathge Kulathunga, 184, Polwatta, Ambalangoda. 04. Kathaladuwa Bulathge Thanuja Dilrukshi 231E, Nilammahara, Bokundara, Piliyandala. 3rd & 4th Defendant-Respondent- Respondents Santhiyagu Chandana De Silva, 180, Polwatta, Ambalangoda. 5th Defendant-Respondent- Appellant Vs. 01. Walpita Gamage Danasiri Woodland Watta Gonapinuwala. 2nd Defendant-Appellant- Respondent 02. Mawanane Hewa Shantha Railway Quarters, Railway Station, Koggala Substituted-Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent. 03. Kathaladuwa Bulathge Kulathunga, 184, Polwatta, Ambalangoda. 04. Kathaladuwa Bulathge Thanuja Dilrukshi 231E, Nilammahara, Bokundara, Piliyandala. 3rd & 4th Defendant-Respondent- Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Section 5 C(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.54 of 2006. 📄 Download
25 Feb 2026 SC/FR/237/2012
1. Graduate Employees’ Union, No.12/2, Weera Mawatha, Subhuthipura, Battaramulla. 2. W. P. Sunith Jayasena, President, Graduate Employees’ Union, No.12/2, Weera Mawatha, Subhuthipura, Battaramulla. 3. Chandana Sooriyarachchi, General Secretray, Graduate Employees’ Union, No.12/2, Weera Mawatha, Subhuthipura, Battaramulla. 4. W. P. Sumith Jayasena, Development Assistant, (Ministry of Irrigation and Water Management) “Jayanthi”, Porasankulama, Galgamuwa. 5. L. D. Thusara, Social Development Assistant (Department of Social Services), 41/B,59, Kalamuthukatiyawatta, Wataraka, Meegoda. 6. N.H.K. Dilip Kumara, Cultural Promotion Officer, (Ministry of Cultural Affairs and National Heritage) 14A, Lane, Wickramasinghapura Battaramulla. 7. Madara Darshani Samaranayake, Science and Technology Officer, (Ministry of Science and Technology) No. 12/71, Jayanthipura Road, Baladaksha Mawatha, Kurunegala. 8. S. B. Kandauda, Early Childhood Development Assistant, (Ministry of Women’s Employment and Social Welfare) No.72/2, Gramodaya Mawatha, Kalalgoda Pannipitiya. 9. G.I.D. Mewan, Human Resource Development Assistant, (Ministry of Labour Relations and Manpower, NO.17, Danwattagoda, Dharga Town. 10. T. Wanniarachchi, Development Assistant, ( Southern Provincial Council) No.221, Ratmalwala, Tangalle. 11. H.K.S. Priyankara, Development Assistant, (Western Provincial Council ) No.25, Grinear Road, Borella. 12. W.A.S. Warnasooriya, Cultural Officer, (North Western Provincial Council), No.5/A25, Refinery Housing Scheme, Makola South, Makola. 13. W. H. D. Warusha Witharana, Investigation Assistant, (Ministry of Health), No.76/1, Sri Dalada Mawatha, Delgamuwa, Kuruwita. Petitioners -Vs.- 3 1. Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 1A. Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Management, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 1B. Mr. K. D. N. Ranjith Asoka, Ministry of Public Administration and Management, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 2. Mrs. Godakanda, Director General, Department of Management Services, Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 2A. Mrs. Godakanda, Director General, Department of Management Services, Ministry of Public Administration and Management, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 2B. Mr. S. Aloka Bandara, Director General of Combined Services, Ministry of Public Administration and Management, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 3A. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Colombo 01. 3B. Mr. K. M. Mahinda Siriwardana, The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Colombo 01. 4. M.N. Junaid, Co-Chairman, National Salaries and Cadres Commission. 5. C. N. C. W. Mathews, Co-Chairman, National Salaries and Cadres Commission. AND OTHERS 1. Graduate Employees’ Union, No.12/2, Weera Mawatha, Subhuthipura, Battaramulla. 2. W. P. Sunith Jayasena, President, Graduate Employees’ Union, No.12/2, Weera Mawatha, Subhuthipura, Battaramulla. 3. Chandana Sooriyarachchi, General Secretray, Graduate Employees’ Union, No.12/2, Weera Mawatha, Subhuthipura, Battaramulla. 4. W. P. Sumith Jayasena, Development Assistant, (Ministry of Irrigation and Water Management) “Jayanthi”, Porasankulama, Galgamuwa. 5. L. D. Thusara, Social Development Assistant (Department of Social Services), 41/B,59, Kalamuthukatiyawatta, Wataraka, Meegoda. 6. N.H.K. Dilip Kumara, Cultural Promotion Officer, (Ministry of Cultural Affairs and National Heritage) 14A, Lane, Wickramasinghapura Battaramulla. 7. Madara Darshani Samaranayake, Science and Technology Officer, (Ministry of Science and Technology) No. 12/71, Jayanthipura Road, Baladaksha Mawatha, Kurunegala. 8. S. B. Kandauda, Early Childhood Development Assistant, (Ministry of Women’s Employment and Social Welfare) No.72/2, Gramodaya Mawatha, Kalalgoda Pannipitiya. 9. G.I.D. Mewan, Human Resource Development Assistant, (Ministry of Labour Relations and Manpower, NO.17, Danwattagoda, Dharga Town. 10. T. Wanniarachchi, Development Assistant, ( Southern Provincial Council) No.221, Ratmalwala, Tangalle. 11. H.K.S. Priyankara, Development Assistant, (Western Provincial Council ) No.25, Grinear Road, Borella. 12. W.A.S. Warnasooriya, Cultural Officer, (North Western Provincial Council), No.5/A25, Refinery Housing Scheme, Makola South, Makola. 13. W. H. D. Warusha Witharana, Investigation Assistant, (Ministry of Health), No.76/1, Sri Dalada Mawatha, Delgamuwa, Kuruwita. Petitioners -Vs.- 3 1. Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 1A. Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and Management, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 1B. Mr. K. D. N. Ranjith Asoka, Ministry of Public Administration and Management, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 2. Mrs. Godakanda, Director General, Department of Management Services, Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 2A. Mrs. Godakanda, Director General, Department of Management Services, Ministry of Public Administration and Management, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 2B. Mr. S. Aloka Bandara, Director General of Combined Services, Ministry of Public Administration and Management, Independence Square, Colombo 7. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Secretariat, Colombo 01. 3A. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Colombo 01. 3B. Mr. K. M. Mahinda Siriwardana, The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Colombo 01. 4. M.N. Junaid, Co-Chairman, National Salaries and Cadres Commission. 5. C. N. C. W. Mathews, Co-Chairman, National Salaries and Cadres Commission. AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Article 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 📄 Download
20 Feb 2026 SC/MISCELLANEOUS/2/2011
W.M. Nawarathna Bandara, “Rathnamahal”, Marapana, Rathnapura. LICENSEE – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT Vs. 1. Chamila Widyalankara, No. 119, Marapana, Rathnapura. 2. G.J.R.N. Wimalananda, No. 191, “Sevana”, Marapana, Rathnapura. 3. T.S.D.V. Karunarathne, No. 191, “Sevana”, Marapana, Rathnapura. 4. A.G. Prabath Amerathunga, Galaudawatte, Marapana, Rathnapura 5. D. Upali Jayaweera, “Raveen”, Marapana South, Marapana. PETITIONER – RESPONDENT - RESPONDENTS 6. National Gem and Jewellery Authority, No. 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. 7. Mr. Rohan De S. Daluwatta – The Chairman, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, No. 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. 8. Dr. R. H. S. Samarathunga – The Secretary, Ministry of Environment, “Sampathpaya”, No. 82, Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla. RESPONDENTS Mr. Pradeep Gunawardane – The Chairman, National Gem & Jewellery Authority, No. 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. Mr. Anura Dissanayake – The Secretary, Ministry of Mahaweli Development & Environment, “Sobadama Piyasa”, 416/C/1, Robert Gunawardana Mw, Battaramulla. ADDED RESPONDENT - RESPONDENTS W.M. Nawarathna Bandara, “Rathnamahal”, Marapana, Rathnapura. LICENSEE – RESPONDENT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT Vs. 1. Chamila Widyalankara, No. 119, Marapana, Rathnapura. 2. G.J.R.N. Wimalananda, No. 191, “Sevana”, Marapana, Rathnapura. 3. T.S.D.V. Karunarathne, No. 191, “Sevana”, Marapana, Rathnapura. 4. A.G. Prabath Amerathunga, Galaudawatte, Marapana, Rathnapura 5. D. Upali Jayaweera, “Raveen”, Marapana South, Marapana. PETITIONER – RESPONDENT - RESPONDENTS 6. National Gem and Jewellery Authority, No. 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. 7. Mr. Rohan De S. Daluwatta – The Chairman, National Gem and Jewellery Authority, No. 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. 8. Dr. R. H. S. Samarathunga – The Secretary, Ministry of Environment, “Sampathpaya”, No. 82, Rajamalwatte Road, Battaramulla. RESPONDENTS Mr. Pradeep Gunawardane – The Chairman, National Gem & Jewellery Authority, No. 25, Galle Face Terrace, Colombo 03. Mr. Anura Dissanayake – The Secretary, Ministry of Mahaweli Development & Environment, “Sobadama Piyasa”, 416/C/1, Robert Gunawardana Mw, Battaramulla. ADDED RESPONDENT - RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Janak De Silva 📄 Download
20 Feb 2026 SC/FR/19/2009
Diyunuge Seetha Mathew, No. 116B, Rosmead Place, Colombo 7. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Land Reform Commission 2. Nimal G. Punchihewa 2A. Sampath Subasinghe Arachchi 2B. Nilantha Wijesinghe Chairman, Land Reform Commission 1st – 2B Respondents at No. 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 3. Hon. D. M. Jayaratne 3A. Hon. John Amaratunga 3B. Hon. Gayantha Karunathilaka 3C. Hon. Harin Fernando Hon. Minister of Lands 4. Indrani Sugathadasa 4A. I.H.K. Mahanama and Others Diyunuge Seetha Mathew, No. 116B, Rosmead Place, Colombo 7. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Land Reform Commission 2. Nimal G. Punchihewa 2A. Sampath Subasinghe Arachchi 2B. Nilantha Wijesinghe Chairman, Land Reform Commission 1st – 2B Respondents at No. 475, Kaduwela Road, Battaramulla. 3. Hon. D. M. Jayaratne 3A. Hon. John Amaratunga 3B. Hon. Gayantha Karunathilaka 3C. Hon. Harin Fernando Hon. Minister of Lands 4. Indrani Sugathadasa 4A. I.H.K. Mahanama and Others
⚖ Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere 📄 Download
20 Feb 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/26/2015
GLOBAL RUBBER INDUSTRIES (PVT) LTD No. 28, Joseph’s Lane, Colombo 04. SHAREHOLDER-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT vs CEYLINCO INSURANCE PLC “Ceylinco House”, No. 69, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. PETITIONER-RESPONDENT 1. CEYLINCO LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED 106, Havelock Road, Colombo 05. 1st RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT 2. CEYLINCO GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED “Ceylinco House”, 3rd Floor, No. 69, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. 2nd RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT GLOBAL RUBBER INDUSTRIES (PVT) LTD No. 28, Joseph’s Lane, Colombo 04. SHAREHOLDER-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT vs CEYLINCO INSURANCE PLC “Ceylinco House”, No. 69, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. PETITIONER-RESPONDENT 1. CEYLINCO LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED 106, Havelock Road, Colombo 05. 1st RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT 2. CEYLINCO GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED “Ceylinco House”, 3rd Floor, No. 69, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01. 2nd RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath K. B. Wijeratne 📄 Download
20 Feb 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/45/2017
Thissa Nagodavithana, No. A1/8, Perahera Mawatha, Colombo 03 1st DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Charith Abishek Nagodavithana, No. A1/8, Perahera Mawatha, Colombo 03 SUBSTITUTED 1st DEFENDANTAPPELLANT Vs. Chithra Balasooriya, No. 48/5, Cornell Avenue, Nadimala, Dehiwala PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT Thissa Nagodavithana, No. A1/8, Perahera Mawatha, Colombo 03 1st DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Charith Abishek Nagodavithana, No. A1/8, Perahera Mawatha, Colombo 03 SUBSTITUTED 1st DEFENDANTAPPELLANT Vs. Chithra Balasooriya, No. 48/5, Cornell Avenue, Nadimala, Dehiwala PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne 📄 Download
20 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/14/2020
Arambegoda Lokugamage Ajith Pushpa Kumara, No. 175/29, Weeramawatha, Depanama, Pannipitiya. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- APPELLANT Vs. Migunthenna Kariyakaranage Sirisena Wadugedarawatte, Panagoda, Neluwa. (Deceased) 1a. Somawathie Jayasekara 1b. Migunthenna Kariyakaranage Nimalsiri 1c. Wijenayaka Gamage Janakee Amitha 1d. Migunthenna Kariyakaranage Heshani Rumeshika 1e. Migunthenna Kariyakaranage Lahiru Dilshan All of Wadugedarawatte, Panagoda, Neluwa. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT-RESPONDENTS Arambegoda Lokugamage Ajith Pushpa Kumara, No. 175/29, Weeramawatha, Depanama, Pannipitiya. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- APPELLANT Vs. Migunthenna Kariyakaranage Sirisena Wadugedarawatte, Panagoda, Neluwa. (Deceased) 1a. Somawathie Jayasekara 1b. Migunthenna Kariyakaranage Nimalsiri 1c. Wijenayaka Gamage Janakee Amitha 1d. Migunthenna Kariyakaranage Heshani Rumeshika 1e. Migunthenna Kariyakaranage Lahiru Dilshan All of Wadugedarawatte, Panagoda, Neluwa. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT-RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon 📄 Download
20 Feb 2026 SC/FR/108/2020
Godallage Priyantha Kumara, Leading Air Crafter, No. 527/A, Henagoda, Aluthwala. Petitioners Vs. 1. Sumangala Dias, Air Marshal, Commander of Sri Lanka Air Force, Headquarters Sri Lanka Air Force, P.O. Box 594, Colombo 2. 1A. Sudarshana Pathirana, Air Marshal, Commander of Sri Lanka Air Force, Headquarters Sri Lanka Air Force, P.O. Box 594, Colombo 2. (1A substituted Respondent) 1AA. Rajapaksa Appuhamillage Udeni Priyadarshana Rajapaksa Air Marshal, Commander of Sri Lanka Air Force, Headquarters Sri Lanka Air Force, P.O. Box 594, Colombo 2. (1AA substituted Respondent) 2. A.J. Amerasinghe, Air Commodore, Commanding Officer, Sri Lanka Air Force Camp, Bandaranaiake International Air Port, Katunayake. 3. N.S. Nagodawithana, Wing Commander, Commanding Officer, Sri Lanka Air Force Camp, Koggala. 4. D.R.A.B. Warakanga, Air Commodore, Commanding Officer Sri Lanka Volunteer Air Force, Sri Lanka Air Force Headquarters, P.O. Box 594, Colombo 2. 5. L.R. Jayaweera, Air Vice Marshal Director Health Services, Sri Lanka Air Force Headquarters, P.O. Box 594, Colombo 2. 6. Dr. Mrs. N.D.B. Abeysekara, Air Commodore, Chairperson of Medical Board, Commanding Officer, Hospital, Sri Lanka Air Force, Katunayake. 7. Dr. A.R. Gunawardane, Squadron Leader Member of Medical Board, Hospital, Sri Lanka Air Force, Katunayake. 8. A.G.T.N.H. Jeewaarachchi, Flight Sergeant, Sri Lanka Air Force, Koggala. 9. Kamal Gunaratne, Major General, Secretary, Ministry of Defence, No. 15/5 Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo. 10. W.L.R.P. Rodrigo, Air Vice Marshall Director Ground Operations, Sri Lanka Air Force, Sri Lanka Air Force Headquarters, P.O. Box 594, Colombo 02. 11. Dissanayaka, Flight Sergeant, Executive Office, Sri Lanka Air Force, Koggala. 12. Honourable Attorney General, Department of the Attorney General, Colombo 12. Respondents Godallage Priyantha Kumara, Leading Air Crafter, No. 527/A, Henagoda, Aluthwala. Petitioners Vs. 1. Sumangala Dias, Air Marshal, Commander of Sri Lanka Air Force, Headquarters Sri Lanka Air Force, P.O. Box 594, Colombo 2. 1A. Sudarshana Pathirana, Air Marshal, Commander of Sri Lanka Air Force, Headquarters Sri Lanka Air Force, P.O. Box 594, Colombo 2. (1A substituted Respondent) 1AA. Rajapaksa Appuhamillage Udeni Priyadarshana Rajapaksa Air Marshal, Commander of Sri Lanka Air Force, Headquarters Sri Lanka Air Force, P.O. Box 594, Colombo 2. (1AA substituted Respondent) 2. A.J. Amerasinghe, Air Commodore, Commanding Officer, Sri Lanka Air Force Camp, Bandaranaiake International Air Port, Katunayake. 3. N.S. Nagodawithana, Wing Commander, Commanding Officer, Sri Lanka Air Force Camp, Koggala. 4. D.R.A.B. Warakanga, Air Commodore, Commanding Officer Sri Lanka Volunteer Air Force, Sri Lanka Air Force Headquarters, P.O. Box 594, Colombo 2. 5. L.R. Jayaweera, Air Vice Marshal Director Health Services, Sri Lanka Air Force Headquarters, P.O. Box 594, Colombo 2. 6. Dr. Mrs. N.D.B. Abeysekara, Air Commodore, Chairperson of Medical Board, Commanding Officer, Hospital, Sri Lanka Air Force, Katunayake. 7. Dr. A.R. Gunawardane, Squadron Leader Member of Medical Board, Hospital, Sri Lanka Air Force, Katunayake. 8. A.G.T.N.H. Jeewaarachchi, Flight Sergeant, Sri Lanka Air Force, Koggala. 9. Kamal Gunaratne, Major General, Secretary, Ministry of Defence, No. 15/5 Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo. 10. W.L.R.P. Rodrigo, Air Vice Marshall Director Ground Operations, Sri Lanka Air Force, Sri Lanka Air Force Headquarters, P.O. Box 594, Colombo 02. 11. Dissanayaka, Flight Sergeant, Executive Office, Sri Lanka Air Force, Koggala. 12. Honourable Attorney General, Department of the Attorney General, Colombo 12. Respondents
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
20 Feb 2026 SC/FR/320/2019
B.A. Bannet Sumanasiri Jayawardane No. 139/3, Kandy Road, Imbulgoda. Petitioner Vs. 1. Chief Inspector, Mallawa kumara Officer in Charge, Yakkala Police Station 1A. Chief Inspector Athula Gamage, Officer in Charge (admin), Yakkala Police Station 2. Inspector, Priyantha Perera Officer in Charge (admin), Yakkala Police Station 3. Sub – Inspector, Sarathchandra Yakkala Police Station 4. Police Constable -68536, Raisingha Yakkala Police Station 5. Police Constable - 88133 Chamara Suranjith Yakkala Police Station . 6. Police Sergeant - 20655, Jayaratna Yakkala Police Station 7. Police Sergeant - 32885 ,kularatna Yakakala Police Station All C/o Police Station, Yakkala 8. Police Constable -53411 Welagedra Weliweriya Police Station 9. Sub inspector, P.D.N Jayalath Weliweriya Police Station 10. Former Chief Inspector - S.K.Upali Weliweriya Police Station 11. Inspector, Predeep Atapatthu Weliweriya Police Station, All C/o Police Station, Yakkala 12. Kapila Senaviratna Former Assistant Superintendent of Police, - 11, Gampaha Division 13. S.M.J.S. Samaranaíyaka Former Assistant Superintendent of Police - 11, Gampaha Division 13A. B.R.D.D.B.S. Basnayaka Former Assistant Superintendent of Police - 11, Gampaha Division 13B. P.J. Athukorala Former Assistant Superintendent of Police - 11, Gampaha Division 14. Muditha Puswella Former Senior Superintendent of Police, Gampaha Division 15. Jagath Rohana, Senior Superintendent of Police, Gampaha Division 16. Ajith Rohana Former Deputy Inspector General of Police (Western Province) 17. T.M.W. Tennakoon Former Deputy Inspector General of Police (western Province) 18. W.M.R.M. Welikanna Deputy Inspector General of Police, (western Province) All C/o Office of the Deputy Inspector General Western Province (North), Peliyagoda. 19. Inspector , Nishantha Perera Officer in Charge – Ombudsman Division 20. Deputy Inspector general Ombudsman Division 21. Director - Crime Division 22. Director - Legal Division 23. Pujitha jayasundara Former Inspector General of Police 24. C.D. Wikaramaratna Senior inspector General of Police All C/o Police headquarters Colombo -01 24A. Priyantha Weerasooriya - Inspector General of Police (Acting) 25. Deputy Election Commission - Gampaha 26. Election Commission - Colombo All C/o Election Commission, Sarana Mawathe, Rajagiriya 27. Chief Jailor Prison, Mahara 28. Chief Medical Officer, Prison, Mahara 29. Superintendent of Prison, Mahara All C/o Superintendent of Prison, Mahara Prison 29A. Dr. Aruni Hapangama – Consultant Psychiatrist – Teaching Hospital, Ragama 29B. Dr.R.M.A Ratnayaka MO (Medico Legal) – Teaching Hospital, Ragama 29C. K.A Rohana Pushpasiri – Former Member Gampaha Pradeshiya Sabha 29D. Hon. Manjula Thilakaratna – Former Hon. Additional Majestrate, Gampaha 30. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents B.A. Bannet Sumanasiri Jayawardane No. 139/3, Kandy Road, Imbulgoda. Petitioner Vs. 1. Chief Inspector, Mallawa kumara Officer in Charge, Yakkala Police Station 1A. Chief Inspector Athula Gamage, Officer in Charge (admin), Yakkala Police Station 2. Inspector, Priyantha Perera Officer in Charge (admin), Yakkala Police Station 3. Sub – Inspector, Sarathchandra Yakkala Police Station 4. Police Constable -68536, Raisingha Yakkala Police Station 5. Police Constable - 88133 Chamara Suranjith Yakkala Police Station . 6. Police Sergeant - 20655, Jayaratna Yakkala Police Station 7. Police Sergeant - 32885 ,kularatna Yakakala Police Station All C/o Police Station, Yakkala 8. Police Constable -53411 Welagedra Weliweriya Police Station 9. Sub inspector, P.D.N Jayalath Weliweriya Police Station 10. Former Chief Inspector - S.K.Upali Weliweriya Police Station 11. Inspector, Predeep Atapatthu Weliweriya Police Station, All C/o Police Station, Yakkala 12. Kapila Senaviratna Former Assistant Superintendent of Police, - 11, Gampaha Division 13. S.M.J.S. Samaranaíyaka Former Assistant Superintendent of Police - 11, Gampaha Division 13A. B.R.D.D.B.S. Basnayaka Former Assistant Superintendent of Police - 11, Gampaha Division 13B. P.J. Athukorala Former Assistant Superintendent of Police - 11, Gampaha Division 14. Muditha Puswella Former Senior Superintendent of Police, Gampaha Division 15. Jagath Rohana, Senior Superintendent of Police, Gampaha Division 16. Ajith Rohana Former Deputy Inspector General of Police (Western Province) 17. T.M.W. Tennakoon Former Deputy Inspector General of Police (western Province) 18. W.M.R.M. Welikanna Deputy Inspector General of Police, (western Province) All C/o Office of the Deputy Inspector General Western Province (North), Peliyagoda. 19. Inspector , Nishantha Perera Officer in Charge – Ombudsman Division 20. Deputy Inspector general Ombudsman Division 21. Director - Crime Division 22. Director - Legal Division 23. Pujitha jayasundara Former Inspector General of Police 24. C.D. Wikaramaratna Senior inspector General of Police All C/o Police headquarters Colombo -01 24A. Priyantha Weerasooriya - Inspector General of Police (Acting) 25. Deputy Election Commission - Gampaha 26. Election Commission - Colombo All C/o Election Commission, Sarana Mawathe, Rajagiriya 27. Chief Jailor Prison, Mahara 28. Chief Medical Officer, Prison, Mahara 29. Superintendent of Prison, Mahara All C/o Superintendent of Prison, Mahara Prison 29A. Dr. Aruni Hapangama – Consultant Psychiatrist – Teaching Hospital, Ragama 29B. Dr.R.M.A Ratnayaka MO (Medico Legal) – Teaching Hospital, Ragama 29C. K.A Rohana Pushpasiri – Former Member Gampaha Pradeshiya Sabha 29D. Hon. Manjula Thilakaratna – Former Hon. Additional Majestrate, Gampaha 30. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
19 Feb 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/43/2022
Saravanamuthu Vimalachandran ‘Kumarakoodam’ Thamotherampillai Rd, Chavakachcheri. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT vs 1. Agasthya (Private) Limited, No. 03-5/1, 1st Chapel Lane, Colombo 6. 2. Subramaniam Pirabaharan, Director, Agasthya (Private) Ltd, No. 03-5/1, 1st Chapel Lane Colombo 6. 3. Subramaniam Vasihran, Director, Agasthya (Private) Ltd, No. 03-5/1, 1st Chapel Lane, Colombo 6. DEFENDANTS - RESPONDENTS Saravanamuthu Vimalachandran ‘Kumarakoodam’ Thamotherampillai Rd, Chavakachcheri. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT vs 1. Agasthya (Private) Limited, No. 03-5/1, 1st Chapel Lane, Colombo 6. 2. Subramaniam Pirabaharan, Director, Agasthya (Private) Ltd, No. 03-5/1, 1st Chapel Lane Colombo 6. 3. Subramaniam Vasihran, Director, Agasthya (Private) Ltd, No. 03-5/1, 1st Chapel Lane, Colombo 6. DEFENDANTS - RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath K. B. Wijeratne 📄 Download
17 Feb 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/25/2022
Na􀆟ons Trust Bank, No. 242, Union Place, Colombo 2. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT - Vs - N. Gamage Niruka Sudarshani Perera, No. 285, Modara Street, Colombo 15. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT Na􀆟ons Trust Bank, No. 242, Union Place, Colombo 2. PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT - Vs - N. Gamage Niruka Sudarshani Perera, No. 285, Modara Street, Colombo 15. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere 📄 Download
13 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/95/2025
Weerasinghe Kodikankanamalage Gihan Akila Dushantha, No. 1357, Palayaththuwa, Trincomalee. Respondent-Appellant Vs. Merchant Bank of Sri Lanka & Finance PLC, (Former Merchant Bank of Sri Lanka PLC) No.28, St Michael’s Road, Colombo 03. Petitioner-Respondent Weerasinghe Kodikankanamalage Gihan Akila Dushantha, No. 1357, Palayaththuwa, Trincomalee. Respondent-Appellant Vs. Merchant Bank of Sri Lanka & Finance PLC, (Former Merchant Bank of Sri Lanka PLC) No.28, St Michael’s Road, Colombo 03. Petitioner-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
13 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/105/2015
Suduwadewa Ariyaratne alias Dissanayake Ariyaratna, “Sisira”, Dikhena, Amugoda. 4th Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Mapalagama Acharige Jane Nona, Dikhena, Amugoda. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1a. Thenuwara Acharige Gunaseeli 1b. Thenuwara Acharige Thungeratne 1c. Thenuwara Acharige Chandrani 1d. Thenuwara Acharige Piyathilake 1e. Thenuwara Acharige Nihal Thenuwara Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondents 1. Kanthi Gunaratne, Dikhena, Amugoda. 2. Walawedurage Eladin Wimalasiri, Dikhena, Amugoda. 2A. Walawedurage Sunil Wijesuriya. 3. Walawedurage Champa Shyamini Wimalasiri, “Sisila”, Amugoda. 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendant-Respondent-Respondents Suduwadewa Ariyaratne alias Dissanayake Ariyaratna, “Sisira”, Dikhena, Amugoda. 4th Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Mapalagama Acharige Jane Nona, Dikhena, Amugoda. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1a. Thenuwara Acharige Gunaseeli 1b. Thenuwara Acharige Thungeratne 1c. Thenuwara Acharige Chandrani 1d. Thenuwara Acharige Piyathilake 1e. Thenuwara Acharige Nihal Thenuwara Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondents 1. Kanthi Gunaratne, Dikhena, Amugoda. 2. Walawedurage Eladin Wimalasiri, Dikhena, Amugoda. 2A. Walawedurage Sunil Wijesuriya. 3. Walawedurage Champa Shyamini Wimalasiri, “Sisila”, Amugoda. 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendant-Respondent-Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
13 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/140/2019
1. Ramalingam Nadarajah 2. Rasathurai Thayaparan 3. Sundaramoorthy Prabhakaran 4. Sivapatham Ganeshalingam 5. Kanagalingam Parameswaran 6. Vinasithamby Kanaganayam 7. Mylvaganam Poopalarajah 8. Maruthalingam Ramesh 9. Sinnathamby Ratnam 10. Balasubramanium Sivasenthan 11. Sellathurai Ganeshapillai 12. Sivapatham Sothilingam 13. Ratnasingam Pameshwaranthan 14. Shanmuganathan Navanneesan 15. Muthulingam Senthilnathan 16. Sivasubramanium Thivakaran All of Kondavil West, Kondavil. 1st Party-Petitioners-Respondents-Appellants Vs. Sanmugasundara Kurukkal Sriskantharajah Kurukkul Kondavil West, Kondavil 2nd Party-Respondent-Appellant-Respondent 1. Ramalingam Nadarajah 2. Rasathurai Thayaparan 3. Sundaramoorthy Prabhakaran 4. Sivapatham Ganeshalingam 5. Kanagalingam Parameswaran 6. Vinasithamby Kanaganayam 7. Mylvaganam Poopalarajah 8. Maruthalingam Ramesh 9. Sinnathamby Ratnam 10. Balasubramanium Sivasenthan 11. Sellathurai Ganeshapillai 12. Sivapatham Sothilingam 13. Ratnasingam Pameshwaranthan 14. Shanmuganathan Navanneesan 15. Muthulingam Senthilnathan 16. Sivasubramanium Thivakaran All of Kondavil West, Kondavil. 1st Party-Petitioners-Respondents-Appellants Vs. Sanmugasundara Kurukkal Sriskantharajah Kurukkul Kondavil West, Kondavil 2nd Party-Respondent-Appellant-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
13 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/101/2019
Seylan Bank PLC Seylan Towers 90, Galle Road Colombo 03 Respondent- Appellant- Appellant Menaka Jayasanka 49/6, Makola South Makola Applicant- Respondent- Respondent Seylan Bank PLC Seylan Towers 90, Galle Road Colombo 03 Respondent- Appellant- Appellant Menaka Jayasanka 49/6, Makola South Makola Applicant- Respondent- Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe 📄 Download
13 Feb 2026 SC/FR/10/2012
Don Prasanna Mervyn Thusharaka Jayamanna of No. 3A, Horton Terrace, Colombo 07 Carrying on the business in the name and style of “D. P. J. Holdings” at DPJ House, Jesmin Park, Narahenpita Road, Nawala. Petitioner V. 1. Prof. Nimal de Silva, Director General, Central Cultural Fund, No. 212/1, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7. 01A. Pro. Prishantha Gunawardana Former Director General, Central Cultural Fund, No. 212/1, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7. 01B. Prof. Gamini Adhikari Former Director General, Central Cultural Fund, No. 212/1, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7. 01C. Gamini Ranasinghe Former Director General, Central Cultural Fund, No. 212/1, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7. 01D. Nilan Cooray Director General, Central Cultural Fund, No. 212/1, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7. 2. Sarath Wijesekara Pathirana Director (Finance) Central Cultural Fund, No. 212/1, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7. and Others Don Prasanna Mervyn Thusharaka Jayamanna of No. 3A, Horton Terrace, Colombo 07 Carrying on the business in the name and style of “D. P. J. Holdings” at DPJ House, Jesmin Park, Narahenpita Road, Nawala. Petitioner V. 1. Prof. Nimal de Silva, Director General, Central Cultural Fund, No. 212/1, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7. 01A. Pro. Prishantha Gunawardana Former Director General, Central Cultural Fund, No. 212/1, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7. 01B. Prof. Gamini Adhikari Former Director General, Central Cultural Fund, No. 212/1, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7. 01C. Gamini Ranasinghe Former Director General, Central Cultural Fund, No. 212/1, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7. 01D. Nilan Cooray Director General, Central Cultural Fund, No. 212/1, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7. 2. Sarath Wijesekara Pathirana Director (Finance) Central Cultural Fund, No. 212/1, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7. and Others
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe 📄 Download
13 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/188/2016 with SC/APPEAL/189/2016
Rasnayake Mudiyanselage Sanjeewa Rasnayake Ehala Agarauda Monnekulama Nikaweratiya Accused-Appellant-Appellant 01. Honourable Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 02.Officer in Charge Police Station Welikada Complainant-Respondent-Respondent Rasnayake Mudiyanselage Sanjeewa Rasnayake Ehala Agarauda Monnekulama Nikaweratiya Accused-Appellant-Appellant 01. Honourable Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 02.Officer in Charge Police Station Welikada Complainant-Respondent-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe 📄 Download
13 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/9/2016
1. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Senerath, Naarigama, Hikkaduwa. 2. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Sirisena Senerath, Naarigama, Hikkaduwa. 3A. H.L.G. Charlis Dias 3B. H.L.G. Kumudunie 3C. H.L.G. Indika 3D. H.L.G. Gunasiri Priyantha All of Iddamalgodawatta, Majuwana, Keradewela. 4A. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Fredie 4B. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Nandasiri 4C. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Chitra Nandani 5. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Diyarin, Naarigama, Hikkaduwa. INTERVENIENT RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT-APPELLANTS Vs. 1A. Karalyne Nandawthie Hettiarachchi (Deceased) 1AA. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Pathmalatha 1AB. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Sirisena 1AC. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Nalaka Prabath 1AD. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Priyanka Pushpakumari 1AE. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Niranjan 1B. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Pathmalatha 1C. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Sirisena 1D. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Nalaka Prabath 1E. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Priyanka Pushpakumari 1F. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Niranjan SUBSTITUTED PETITIONER- APPELLANT-RESPONDENTS 1. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Senerath, Naarigama, Hikkaduwa. 2. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Sirisena Senerath, Naarigama, Hikkaduwa. 3A. H.L.G. Charlis Dias 3B. H.L.G. Kumudunie 3C. H.L.G. Indika 3D. H.L.G. Gunasiri Priyantha All of Iddamalgodawatta, Majuwana, Keradewela. 4A. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Fredie 4B. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Nandasiri 4C. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Chitra Nandani 5. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Diyarin, Naarigama, Hikkaduwa. INTERVENIENT RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT-APPELLANTS Vs. 1A. Karalyne Nandawthie Hettiarachchi (Deceased) 1AA. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Pathmalatha 1AB. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Sirisena 1AC. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Nalaka Prabath 1AD. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Priyanka Pushpakumari 1AE. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Niranjan 1B. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Pathmalatha 1C. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Sirisena 1D. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Nalaka Prabath 1E. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Priyanka Pushpakumari 1F. Nanayakkarawasam Ihalage Niranjan SUBSTITUTED PETITIONER- APPELLANT-RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon 📄 Download
13 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/162/2017
K.H.G. Sirisena (More correctly as K.M.G. Sirisena), of \"Wasana Jewellers\", No. 233, Anuradhapura Road, Thambuththegama. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- APPELLANT Sunil Rathnayake, of Thalakola Wewa, Mahawa. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT- RESPONDENT K.H.G. Sirisena (More correctly as K.M.G. Sirisena), of \"Wasana Jewellers\", No. 233, Anuradhapura Road, Thambuththegama. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- APPELLANT Sunil Rathnayake, of Thalakola Wewa, Mahawa. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT- RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon 📄 Download
12 Feb 2026 SC/FR/267/2018
1. Godagama Vidana Arachchige Norbert Perera No. 134/A, Gampala Road, Navalapitiya. 2. Thilak Jans Chandralal Disanayake No. 126, Hiressagala Road, Pilimathalawa. 3. Warnakulasuriy Dehiwalage Gamini Kapiladewa Costa, No. 84, Meerigama Road, Dunagaha. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. H.M.P.B. Herath Director General, Department of Sports Development, No. 09, Phillip Gunawardana Mawatha, Colombo 07. 1A. Dammika Muthugala Director General, Department of Sports Development, No. 09, Phillip Gunawardana Mawatha, Colombo 07. 1B. Amal Edirisooriya Director General, Department of Sports Development, No. 09, Phillip Gunawardana Mawatha, Colombo 07. 1C. A. Muthumala, Director General, Department of Sports Development, No. 09, Phillip Gunawardana Mawatha, Colombo 07. 1D. Dr. Shemal Fernando Director General, Department of Sports Development, No. 09, Phillip Gunawardana Mawatha, Colombo 07. 2. Apsara Caldera Director, Ministry of Provincial Councils, Local Government & Sports, No. 09, Phillip Gunawardana Mawatha, Colombo 07. (Ceased to Hold Office) 3. I.P. Wijeratne Director (Sports) Department of Sports Development, No. 09, Phillip Gunawardana Mawatha, Colombo 07. AND OTHERS 1. Godagama Vidana Arachchige Norbert Perera No. 134/A, Gampala Road, Navalapitiya. 2. Thilak Jans Chandralal Disanayake No. 126, Hiressagala Road, Pilimathalawa. 3. Warnakulasuriy Dehiwalage Gamini Kapiladewa Costa, No. 84, Meerigama Road, Dunagaha. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. H.M.P.B. Herath Director General, Department of Sports Development, No. 09, Phillip Gunawardana Mawatha, Colombo 07. 1A. Dammika Muthugala Director General, Department of Sports Development, No. 09, Phillip Gunawardana Mawatha, Colombo 07. 1B. Amal Edirisooriya Director General, Department of Sports Development, No. 09, Phillip Gunawardana Mawatha, Colombo 07. 1C. A. Muthumala, Director General, Department of Sports Development, No. 09, Phillip Gunawardana Mawatha, Colombo 07. 1D. Dr. Shemal Fernando Director General, Department of Sports Development, No. 09, Phillip Gunawardana Mawatha, Colombo 07. 2. Apsara Caldera Director, Ministry of Provincial Councils, Local Government & Sports, No. 09, Phillip Gunawardana Mawatha, Colombo 07. (Ceased to Hold Office) 3. I.P. Wijeratne Director (Sports) Department of Sports Development, No. 09, Phillip Gunawardana Mawatha, Colombo 07. AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon. Chief Justice P. Padman Surasena 📄 Download
10 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/96/2025
Piliyandala Tharuna Bauddha Samithiya (Young Buddhist Association), No. 11, Maharagama Road, Piliyandala. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Satharasinghe Achcige Don Chaminda, No. 272/B, U.D.T. Wimal Perera Mawatha, Kesbewa. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent Piliyandala Tharuna Bauddha Samithiya (Young Buddhist Association), No. 11, Maharagama Road, Piliyandala. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Satharasinghe Achcige Don Chaminda, No. 272/B, U.D.T. Wimal Perera Mawatha, Kesbewa. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
10 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/102/2023
1. Pandithakoralalage Don Hilmon No. 249, “Samanala”, Malamulla West, Panadura 2. Kopiyawattage Mebel Somalatha Perera No. 249, “Samanala”, Malamulla West, Panadura PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANTS Vs. 4. Angage Deepali Swarna Rajakarua alias, Angage Deepali Swarna Perera No. 304, Galle Road, Thalpitiya 4th and 7A DEFENDANT APPELLANT 5. Angage Pushpa Shanthi Perera, No. 97, Nidolhetiya, Kolonbage Ara, Embilipitiya (Deceased) 5A. Ishwarage Don Walter Appuhami, Galawatimodara Road, Nalluruva, Panadura SUBSTITUTED 5A & 7B DEFENDANT APPELLANT 6. Angage Prithi Ranjanie Perera, Dharmaraja Mawatha, No. 1/12, Allen Avenue, Dehiwala 6th and 7C DEFENDANT APPELLANT DEFENDANT APPELLANTS 1. Douglas Danister Nanayakkara No. 7, Rathmalana Flats, Mount Lavinia 2. Poddiwelakankanamge Ajith Priyantha, “Nelum”, South Magala Karandeniya 3. Paththadeva Pradipika Mendis, “Nelum”, South Magala Karandeniya 1st, 2nd AND 3rd DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS 1. Pandithakoralalage Don Hilmon No. 249, “Samanala”, Malamulla West, Panadura 2. Kopiyawattage Mebel Somalatha Perera No. 249, “Samanala”, Malamulla West, Panadura PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANTS Vs. 4. Angage Deepali Swarna Rajakarua alias, Angage Deepali Swarna Perera No. 304, Galle Road, Thalpitiya 4th and 7A DEFENDANT APPELLANT 5. Angage Pushpa Shanthi Perera, No. 97, Nidolhetiya, Kolonbage Ara, Embilipitiya (Deceased) 5A. Ishwarage Don Walter Appuhami, Galawatimodara Road, Nalluruva, Panadura SUBSTITUTED 5A & 7B DEFENDANT APPELLANT 6. Angage Prithi Ranjanie Perera, Dharmaraja Mawatha, No. 1/12, Allen Avenue, Dehiwala 6th and 7C DEFENDANT APPELLANT DEFENDANT APPELLANTS 1. Douglas Danister Nanayakkara No. 7, Rathmalana Flats, Mount Lavinia 2. Poddiwelakankanamge Ajith Priyantha, “Nelum”, South Magala Karandeniya 3. Paththadeva Pradipika Mendis, “Nelum”, South Magala Karandeniya 1st, 2nd AND 3rd DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal under and in terms of Section 5C(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006 📄 Download
10 Feb 2026 SC/FR/261/2019
Nithijanatham Baskaran, C/O:N. Sivathiruchenthuranathan, Kaithady West, Kaithady, Jaffna. PETITIONER Vs. 1. University of Jaffna, Thirunelvelvy, Jaffna. 2. Prof. Ratnam Wikneswaran, Former Vice Chancellor, University of Jaffna, Thirunelvelvy, Jaffna. 2A. Prof. K. Kandasamy, Competent Authority, University of Jaffna, Thirunelvelvy, Jaffna. 3. Dr. K. Suthakar, Dean, Faculty of Arts, University of Jaffna, Thirunelvelvy, Jaffna. 4. Dr. (Mrs.) B. J. Rasanen, Head, Department of Sociology, University of Jaffna, Thirunelvelvy, Jaffna. 5. Mrs. A. Rajakumar, Senate Nominee (Council Member) University of Jaffna, Thirunelvelvy, Jaffna. 6. Mr. P. E. Eswaradasan Council Nominee (Council Member) University of Jaffna, Thirunelvelvy, Jaffna. 7. Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda, Council Nominee (Council Member) University of Jaffna, Thirunelvelvy, Jaffna. 8. Dr. A. A. Kadirgamar, 63, Rakka Lane, Nallur, Jaffna. 9. University Grant Commission, Ward Place, Colombo 07. 10. The Registrar, University of Jaffna, Thirunelvelvy, Jaffna. 11. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney-General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS Nithijanatham Baskaran, C/O:N. Sivathiruchenthuranathan, Kaithady West, Kaithady, Jaffna. PETITIONER Vs. 1. University of Jaffna, Thirunelvelvy, Jaffna. 2. Prof. Ratnam Wikneswaran, Former Vice Chancellor, University of Jaffna, Thirunelvelvy, Jaffna. 2A. Prof. K. Kandasamy, Competent Authority, University of Jaffna, Thirunelvelvy, Jaffna. 3. Dr. K. Suthakar, Dean, Faculty of Arts, University of Jaffna, Thirunelvelvy, Jaffna. 4. Dr. (Mrs.) B. J. Rasanen, Head, Department of Sociology, University of Jaffna, Thirunelvelvy, Jaffna. 5. Mrs. A. Rajakumar, Senate Nominee (Council Member) University of Jaffna, Thirunelvelvy, Jaffna. 6. Mr. P. E. Eswaradasan Council Nominee (Council Member) University of Jaffna, Thirunelvelvy, Jaffna. 7. Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda, Council Nominee (Council Member) University of Jaffna, Thirunelvelvy, Jaffna. 8. Dr. A. A. Kadirgamar, 63, Rakka Lane, Nallur, Jaffna. 9. University Grant Commission, Ward Place, Colombo 07. 10. The Registrar, University of Jaffna, Thirunelvelvy, Jaffna. 11. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney-General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne In the matter of an Application in respect of the violation of Fundamental Rights in terms of Article 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 📄 Download
09 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/172/2014
5. P.P.B. Jayasekara, Nikapitiya Walauwwa, Ussapitiya. 5th Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Sam Walgama, Aluthnuwara Walauwwa, Aluthnuwara (Deceased). Dombawala Pathirannehelage Kusumawathie, Colombo Road, Polgahawela. Presently at: “Senasuma”, Kudagalgamuwa, Kurunegala. Substituted-Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 1. Kahandawa Arachchige Nevile Kumara Jayaratne, Nikapitiya. 2a. Denawatte Gedara Amurthhastha Mudiyanselage Samantha Bandara, (Deceased). 2aa. Denawatte Gedara Amurthhastha Senevi Abayakoon Mudiyanselage Maithri Bandara, Nikapitiya, Ussapitiya. Presently at: 148-15, Daisan-Ri, Jeanggwrn.Myeon, Gijang.Gun, Busan, South Korea. 3. Denawatte Gedara Seneviratne, Nikapitiya. 4a. Kulatunga Mudiyanselage Nanda Peramuna, (Deceased) 4aa. Peramune Ralalage Shyama Kumari Peramune, Udagedara Watta, Nikapitiya, Ussapitiya. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents 5. P.P.B. Jayasekara, Nikapitiya Walauwwa, Ussapitiya. 5th Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Sam Walgama, Aluthnuwara Walauwwa, Aluthnuwara (Deceased). Dombawala Pathirannehelage Kusumawathie, Colombo Road, Polgahawela. Presently at: “Senasuma”, Kudagalgamuwa, Kurunegala. Substituted-Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 1. Kahandawa Arachchige Nevile Kumara Jayaratne, Nikapitiya. 2a. Denawatte Gedara Amurthhastha Mudiyanselage Samantha Bandara, (Deceased). 2aa. Denawatte Gedara Amurthhastha Senevi Abayakoon Mudiyanselage Maithri Bandara, Nikapitiya, Ussapitiya. Presently at: 148-15, Daisan-Ri, Jeanggwrn.Myeon, Gijang.Gun, Busan, South Korea. 3. Denawatte Gedara Seneviratne, Nikapitiya. 4a. Kulatunga Mudiyanselage Nanda Peramuna, (Deceased) 4aa. Peramune Ralalage Shyama Kumari Peramune, Udagedara Watta, Nikapitiya, Ussapitiya. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
09 Feb 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/25/2017
Sri Lanka Ports Management & Consultancy Services Ltd, No. 19, Church Street, Colombo 01. 1st Defendant-Appellant Vs. Tanyo Haulage (Pvt) Ltd, No. 23, Rodney Street, Colombo 08. Plaintiff-Respondent Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No.19, Church Street, Colombo 01. 2nd Defendant-Respondent Sri Lanka Ports Management & Consultancy Services Ltd, No. 19, Church Street, Colombo 01. 1st Defendant-Appellant Vs. Tanyo Haulage (Pvt) Ltd, No. 23, Rodney Street, Colombo 08. Plaintiff-Respondent Sri Lanka Ports Authority, No.19, Church Street, Colombo 01. 2nd Defendant-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
09 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/78/2022
G.A.D. Sumanapala Watte Gedara, Uduhulpotha Bandarawela 15th Defendant – Appellant-Appellant V. L.K.Samudra Swarnamali Uduhulpotha, Bandarawela Substituted Plaintiff- Respondent-Respondent 1. Galle Arachchige Don Pedrik Appuhamy (Deceased) Mahindasiri, Golflink Rd, Bandarawela 1. A. Galle Arachchige Don Ananda Galle Arachchi 2. G.A.D. Podiappuhamy (Deceased) 2.A. G.A.D.Nimal Chandraguptha Diwthotawelakanda,Welimada 2.B. G.A.D.Rupasinghe 2.C. Asoka Weeralatha 2.D. Pushpalatha Upamalika 3. G.A.D Williyam Appuhamy (Deceased) 3.A. G.A.D.Nandani Indra Niwasa, (Deceased) Uduhulpotha,Bandarawela 3.B. G.A.D Neelakanthi 144/9/A, Pamunuwela, Gonawela, Kelaniya alias Indra Niwasa, Uduhulpotha Bandarawela 4. G.A.D. Kumaradasa (Deceased) 4.A. Y.M.Nandawathie 4.B. Ashoka Kumarasasa Both of Sobana Motors, Uduhulpotha, Bandarawela 4.C. G.A.D. Mahendrasena Pinarawa, Kinigama, Bandarawela 5. Keerthi Amarasinghe Alias Nimal Keerthi Amarasinghe Watte Gedara, Uduhulpotha Bandarawela 6. Sriyawathie Abeykoon, Abeysiri Niwasa, Uduhulpotha Bandarawela. 7.K.B.Chandrasena, Uduhulpotha, Bandarawela. 8.Pathmini Nilaweera Watte Gedara, Uduhulpotha, Bandarawela. 9. Dona Godahena Kamala Witharana 298, Watte Gedara, Uduhulpotha, Bandarawela. 10.Okanda Gamage Dhanapala Amila, Watte Gedara, Uduhulpotha Bandarawela 11.Premawathie Mahawitharana Uduhulpotha, Bandarawela 12.Sirisena Wanasinghe alias Wanasinghe Mudiyansilage Sirisena Uduhulpotha, Bandarawela 13.Hansa Udukalage 14.R.M. Dharmasiri All Of Watte Gedara, Uduhulpotha Bandarawela 16. Okanda Gamage Chandrani Renuka Uduhulpotha, Bandarawela 17.M.K.M Pemalatha, 18. Galle Arachchige Don Ananda Galle Arachchi Mahindasiri, Golflink Rd, Bandarawela. Defendants- Respondents-Respondents G.A.D. Sumanapala Watte Gedara, Uduhulpotha Bandarawela 15th Defendant – Appellant-Appellant V. L.K.Samudra Swarnamali Uduhulpotha, Bandarawela Substituted Plaintiff- Respondent-Respondent 1. Galle Arachchige Don Pedrik Appuhamy (Deceased) Mahindasiri, Golflink Rd, Bandarawela 1. A. Galle Arachchige Don Ananda Galle Arachchi 2. G.A.D. Podiappuhamy (Deceased) 2.A. G.A.D.Nimal Chandraguptha Diwthotawelakanda,Welimada 2.B. G.A.D.Rupasinghe 2.C. Asoka Weeralatha 2.D. Pushpalatha Upamalika 3. G.A.D Williyam Appuhamy (Deceased) 3.A. G.A.D.Nandani Indra Niwasa, (Deceased) Uduhulpotha,Bandarawela 3.B. G.A.D Neelakanthi 144/9/A, Pamunuwela, Gonawela, Kelaniya alias Indra Niwasa, Uduhulpotha Bandarawela 4. G.A.D. Kumaradasa (Deceased) 4.A. Y.M.Nandawathie 4.B. Ashoka Kumarasasa Both of Sobana Motors, Uduhulpotha, Bandarawela 4.C. G.A.D. Mahendrasena Pinarawa, Kinigama, Bandarawela 5. Keerthi Amarasinghe Alias Nimal Keerthi Amarasinghe Watte Gedara, Uduhulpotha Bandarawela 6. Sriyawathie Abeykoon, Abeysiri Niwasa, Uduhulpotha Bandarawela. 7.K.B.Chandrasena, Uduhulpotha, Bandarawela. 8.Pathmini Nilaweera Watte Gedara, Uduhulpotha, Bandarawela. 9. Dona Godahena Kamala Witharana 298, Watte Gedara, Uduhulpotha, Bandarawela. 10.Okanda Gamage Dhanapala Amila, Watte Gedara, Uduhulpotha Bandarawela 11.Premawathie Mahawitharana Uduhulpotha, Bandarawela 12.Sirisena Wanasinghe alias Wanasinghe Mudiyansilage Sirisena Uduhulpotha, Bandarawela 13.Hansa Udukalage 14.R.M. Dharmasiri All Of Watte Gedara, Uduhulpotha Bandarawela 16. Okanda Gamage Chandrani Renuka Uduhulpotha, Bandarawela 17.M.K.M Pemalatha, 18. Galle Arachchige Don Ananda Galle Arachchi Mahindasiri, Golflink Rd, Bandarawela. Defendants- Respondents-Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando 📄 Download
09 Feb 2026 SC/FR/46/2020, SC/FR/47/2020, SC/FR/48/2020
SC/FR/46/2020: Mohamed Ibrahim Mohamed Ishran Ahamed No. 658/78, Mahawela Gardens, Dematagoda. Petitioner On behalf of: Mohamed Yusuf Mohamed Ibrahim No. 658/78, Mahawela Gardens, Dematagoda. v. 1. Senior Superintendent of Police Director Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 2. Assistant Superintendent of Police Homicide Unit, Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 3. Maithripala Sirisena President (former) of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Mahagama Sekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. 4. Honourable Attorney-General Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents. SC/FR/47/2020: Mohamed Ibrahim Mohamed Ishran Ahamed No. 658/78, Mahawela Place, Dematagoda. Petitioner On behalf of: Mohamed Ibrahim Mohamed Ismail No. 658/90, Mahawela Place, Dematagoda. v. 1. M.A.A. Rohan Premaratne Senior Superintendent of Police Director Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 2. Meril Ranjan Lamahewa Assistant Superintendent of Police Homicide Unit, Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 3. Maithripala Sirisena President (former) of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Mahagama Sekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. 4. Honourable Attorney-General Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents. SC/FR/48/2020: Fathima Rushda Iqbal No. 658/109/A, Mahawila House, Dematagoda. Petitioner On behalf of: Mohamed Ibrahim Ijaz Ahmed No. 658/109/A, Mahawila House, Dematagoda. v. 1. Kavinda Piyasekara Senior Superintendent of Police Director, Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 2. Ranjan Lamahewa Assistant Superintendent of Police Homicide Unit, Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 3. General (Rtd.) G.D.H. Kamal Gunaratne Secretary, Ministry of Defence, No. 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 4. Honourable Attorney-General Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents SC/FR/46/2020: Mohamed Ibrahim Mohamed Ishran Ahamed No. 658/78, Mahawela Gardens, Dematagoda. Petitioner On behalf of: Mohamed Yusuf Mohamed Ibrahim No. 658/78, Mahawela Gardens, Dematagoda. v. 1. Senior Superintendent of Police Director Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 2. Assistant Superintendent of Police Homicide Unit, Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 3. Maithripala Sirisena President (former) of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Mahagama Sekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. 4. Honourable Attorney-General Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents. SC/FR/47/2020: Mohamed Ibrahim Mohamed Ishran Ahamed No. 658/78, Mahawela Place, Dematagoda. Petitioner On behalf of: Mohamed Ibrahim Mohamed Ismail No. 658/90, Mahawela Place, Dematagoda. v. 1. M.A.A. Rohan Premaratne Senior Superintendent of Police Director Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 2. Meril Ranjan Lamahewa Assistant Superintendent of Police Homicide Unit, Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 3. Maithripala Sirisena President (former) of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Mahagama Sekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. 4. Honourable Attorney-General Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents. SC/FR/48/2020: Fathima Rushda Iqbal No. 658/109/A, Mahawila House, Dematagoda. Petitioner On behalf of: Mohamed Ibrahim Ijaz Ahmed No. 658/109/A, Mahawila House, Dematagoda. v. 1. Kavinda Piyasekara Senior Superintendent of Police Director, Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 2. Ranjan Lamahewa Assistant Superintendent of Police Homicide Unit, Criminal Investigations Department, Colombo 01. 3. General (Rtd.) G.D.H. Kamal Gunaratne Secretary, Ministry of Defence, No. 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 4. Honourable Attorney-General Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Yasantha Kodagoda, PC In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Article 126 read with Article 17 of the Constitution. 📄 Download
06 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/44/2025
The General Consistory of the Christian Reformed Church of Sri Lanka, of No. 363, Galle Road, Wellawatte, Colombo 06. Plaintiff - Respondent - Appellant Vs. Mr. Rojer Foo Kwei Hsu of “Chinese Gift Palace”, of No. 78, Galle Road, Wellawatte, Colombo 6 Defendant – Appellant - Respondent The General Consistory of the Christian Reformed Church of Sri Lanka, of No. 363, Galle Road, Wellawatte, Colombo 06. Plaintiff - Respondent - Appellant Vs. Mr. Rojer Foo Kwei Hsu of “Chinese Gift Palace”, of No. 78, Galle Road, Wellawatte, Colombo 6 Defendant – Appellant - Respondent
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
06 Feb 2026 SC/FR/155/2023
Nona Moreen Noor No. B/4/2/7, Mihidusenpura, Baseline Road, Dematagoda. Petitioner Vs. 1. H.N.B.J. Wijewardena, Officer in Charge, Police Station Maligawatte. 2. A. G. J. Chandra Kumara, Deputy Inspector General of Police Colombo Range, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 3. T. M. W. D. Thennakoon, Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police Western Province, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 3A. K. P. M. Gunaratne, Senior Deputy Inspector General Police Western Province, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 4. Rashantha Senerath, Assistant Superintendent of Police Colombo Central III. 5. C. D. Wickremaratne, Inspect or General of Police (For mer), Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 5A. T.M.W.D. Thennakon, Inspector General of Police (For mer), Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 6. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 7. General (Retired) Kamal Guneratne Secretary, Ministry of Defen ce, Defence Headquarters Complex Akuregoda. 8. Tiran Alles, Minister of Public Security, Floor 4, Suhurupaya, Subuthipura road, Battaramulla. Respondents Nona Moreen Noor No. B/4/2/7, Mihidusenpura, Baseline Road, Dematagoda. Petitioner Vs. 1. H.N.B.J. Wijewardena, Officer in Charge, Police Station Maligawatte. 2. A. G. J. Chandra Kumara, Deputy Inspector General of Police Colombo Range, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 3. T. M. W. D. Thennakoon, Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police Western Province, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 3A. K. P. M. Gunaratne, Senior Deputy Inspector General Police Western Province, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 4. Rashantha Senerath, Assistant Superintendent of Police Colombo Central III. 5. C. D. Wickremaratne, Inspect or General of Police (For mer), Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 5A. T.M.W.D. Thennakon, Inspector General of Police (For mer), Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 6. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 7. General (Retired) Kamal Guneratne Secretary, Ministry of Defen ce, Defence Headquarters Complex Akuregoda. 8. Tiran Alles, Minister of Public Security, Floor 4, Suhurupaya, Subuthipura road, Battaramulla. Respondents
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
06 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/162/2019
Brandywattage Siriyawathee, No. 618, Eldeniya, Kadawatha. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Hikkaduwa Galappathige Aheshani Menaka Kumari, No. 298/6, Shramadana Mawatha, Ihala Biyanwila, Kadawatha. 2. Abeykoon Jayasundara Mudiyanselage Devindu Tharuka Abeykoon, No. 298/6, Shramadana Mawatha, Ihala Biyanwila, Kadawatha. 3. Abeykoon Jayasundara Mudiyanselage Seneviratne, No. 298/6, Shramadana Mawatha, Ihala Biyanwila, Kadawatha. Defendant-Appellant-Respondents Brandywattage Siriyawathee, No. 618, Eldeniya, Kadawatha. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Hikkaduwa Galappathige Aheshani Menaka Kumari, No. 298/6, Shramadana Mawatha, Ihala Biyanwila, Kadawatha. 2. Abeykoon Jayasundara Mudiyanselage Devindu Tharuka Abeykoon, No. 298/6, Shramadana Mawatha, Ihala Biyanwila, Kadawatha. 3. Abeykoon Jayasundara Mudiyanselage Seneviratne, No. 298/6, Shramadana Mawatha, Ihala Biyanwila, Kadawatha. Defendant-Appellant-Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
06 Feb 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/23/2013
M/S Dwellco Developments (Private )Limited No.1090, Sri Jayawardenapura Road, Rajagiriya,Kotte New Address No. 89, 1/1 Castle Street, Borella DEFENDANT-APPELLANT M/s Captain Steel (Private) Limited (Before - M/S Ind- Sri Industrial Corporation (Private) Ltd.) Kurunduwatta Estate, Udamapitigama Malwana PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT M/S Dwellco Developments (Private )Limited No.1090, Sri Jayawardenapura Road, Rajagiriya,Kotte New Address No. 89, 1/1 Castle Street, Borella DEFENDANT-APPELLANT M/s Captain Steel (Private) Limited (Before - M/S Ind- Sri Industrial Corporation (Private) Ltd.) Kurunduwatta Estate, Udamapitigama Malwana PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Janak De Silva 📄 Download
06 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/139/2024
Tech Pacific Lanka Pvt Ltd, No. 04, Castle Lane, Colombo 04. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs. NTT Data Business Solutions Pvt Ltd, (Formally known as Intelligence India Software Solutions Pvt Ltd), Softsol Tower 2, Third Floor, B-wing, Software Units Layout, Infocity, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana, India. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT Tech Pacific Lanka Pvt Ltd, No. 04, Castle Lane, Colombo 04. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs. NTT Data Business Solutions Pvt Ltd, (Formally known as Intelligence India Software Solutions Pvt Ltd), Softsol Tower 2, Third Floor, B-wing, Software Units Layout, Infocity, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana, India. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon 📄 Download
06 Feb 2026 SC/FR/212/2021
1. Hansa Brahmana Malthunga Mudiyanselage Saddha Mangala Wijerathna No. 272/B, Kande Kumbura, Kurunegala. 2. Aparakkalage Aruna Kamal No. 54, Godawela, Polgahawela. 3. Werawellalage Siri Adman Gunarathna No. 05, Wijaya Samagipura, Aswedduma, Kurunegala. 4. Galbokka Hewagei Pransis Silva Chathurani, Harumalgoda, Habaraduwa. 5. Aparakkage Sumithra Kumari H.M. Karunathilaka, Rambottukulama, Galgamuwa. And 55 others Petitioners v. 1. Kurunegala Municipal Council Kurunegala. 2. Thushara Sanjeewa Vitharana Mayor, Kurunegala Municipal Council, Kurunegala. 3. Pradeep Thilakarathna Municipal Commissioner, Kurunegala Municipal Council, Kurunegala. 4. Commissioner of Local Government – North Western Province 2nd Floor – Gate B, Provincial Council Office Complex, Kurunegala. 5. Honourable Attorney-General Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents 1. Hansa Brahmana Malthunga Mudiyanselage Saddha Mangala Wijerathna No. 272/B, Kande Kumbura, Kurunegala. 2. Aparakkalage Aruna Kamal No. 54, Godawela, Polgahawela. 3. Werawellalage Siri Adman Gunarathna No. 05, Wijaya Samagipura, Aswedduma, Kurunegala. 4. Galbokka Hewagei Pransis Silva Chathurani, Harumalgoda, Habaraduwa. 5. Aparakkage Sumithra Kumari H.M. Karunathilaka, Rambottukulama, Galgamuwa. And 55 others Petitioners v. 1. Kurunegala Municipal Council Kurunegala. 2. Thushara Sanjeewa Vitharana Mayor, Kurunegala Municipal Council, Kurunegala. 3. Pradeep Thilakarathna Municipal Commissioner, Kurunegala Municipal Council, Kurunegala. 4. Commissioner of Local Government – North Western Province 2nd Floor – Gate B, Provincial Council Office Complex, Kurunegala. 5. Honourable Attorney-General Attorney-General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Yasantha Kodagoda, PC In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Article 126 read with Article 17 of the Constitution. 📄 Download
05 Feb 2026 SC/FR/925/2009
1. L.M.S.P. Pitawala, Technical College, Nuwara Eliya. 2. E.A.N.D. Edirisinghe Technical College, Aruppola, Kandy. 3. W. Kamal Gunarathna Technical College, Aruppola, Kandy. 4. K.M. Senivirathna Technical College, Aruppola, Kandy. 5. W.M. Ranathunga Technical College, Badulla. 6. I.S.K. Jayarathna Technical College, Keglle. 7. H.P.H. Wickramarathna Technical College, Rathmalana. 8. L.L. Lalantha De Silva Technical College, Galle. 9. S.W. Nilaweera Technical College, Matara. 10. Mrs. W.A.D.M.M. Wijesinghe Technical College, Ratnapura. 11. Mrs. K.K. Chandrika University of Vocational Technology, No. 100, Kandawala Road, Ratmalana. 12. G.P. Wijesinghe University of Vocational Technology, No. 100, Kandawala Road, Ratmalana. 13. H.K. Dalugama, University of Vocational Technology, No. 100, Kandawala Road, Ratmalana. 14. M.K. Gunawardana Technical College, Kurunegala. 15. A.M.R.R. Abeykoon Technical College, Kurunegala. 16. I.D.J. Kulathunga University of Vocational Technology, No. 100, Kandawala Road, Ratmalana. 17. A.L.J. Silva Technical College, Kalutara. 18. L.D. Damayanthi Technical College, Matara. 19. Sujeewa Sonnadara Technical College, Galle. 20. Linton Sirimanna Technical College, Galle. 21. A.K. Hettiarachchi Technical College, Galle. 22. A.S.C. De Silva Technical College, Rathmalana. 23. W.M. Thilakaratna Technical College, Monaragala. 24. P.K. Nimal Gunathilaka Technical College, Gampaha. PETITIONERS -Vs- 1. Thilak Hapangama Secretary to the Ministry of Vocational & Technical Training, \\\"Nipunatha Piyasa\\\" 354/2, Elvitigala Mw., Colombo 5. 1A. S.S. Hewapathirana Secretary to the Ministry of Vocational & Technical Training, \\\"Nipunatha Piyasa\\\" 354/2, Elvitigala Mw., Colombo 5. 1B. P. Ranepura Ministry of Science, Technology, Research, Skills Development & Vocational Training & Kandyan Heritage Affairs, \\\"Nipunatha Piyasa\\\", 354/2, Elwitigala Mw, Colombo 05. 2. H.I. Obeysekara Director General Department of Technical Education Training, P.O. Box 557, Olcott Mw, Colombo 10. 2A. H.C. Ambawatte Director General Department of Technical Education Training, P.O. Box 557, Olcott Mw, Colombo 10 2B. Mrs. P.N.K. Malalasekara, Director General Department of Technical Education Training, P.O Box 557, Olcott Mw, Colombo 10 AND OTHERS. 1. L.M.S.P. Pitawala, Technical College, Nuwara Eliya. 2. E.A.N.D. Edirisinghe Technical College, Aruppola, Kandy. 3. W. Kamal Gunarathna Technical College, Aruppola, Kandy. 4. K.M. Senivirathna Technical College, Aruppola, Kandy. 5. W.M. Ranathunga Technical College, Badulla. 6. I.S.K. Jayarathna Technical College, Keglle. 7. H.P.H. Wickramarathna Technical College, Rathmalana. 8. L.L. Lalantha De Silva Technical College, Galle. 9. S.W. Nilaweera Technical College, Matara. 10. Mrs. W.A.D.M.M. Wijesinghe Technical College, Ratnapura. 11. Mrs. K.K. Chandrika University of Vocational Technology, No. 100, Kandawala Road, Ratmalana. 12. G.P. Wijesinghe University of Vocational Technology, No. 100, Kandawala Road, Ratmalana. 13. H.K. Dalugama, University of Vocational Technology, No. 100, Kandawala Road, Ratmalana. 14. M.K. Gunawardana Technical College, Kurunegala. 15. A.M.R.R. Abeykoon Technical College, Kurunegala. 16. I.D.J. Kulathunga University of Vocational Technology, No. 100, Kandawala Road, Ratmalana. 17. A.L.J. Silva Technical College, Kalutara. 18. L.D. Damayanthi Technical College, Matara. 19. Sujeewa Sonnadara Technical College, Galle. 20. Linton Sirimanna Technical College, Galle. 21. A.K. Hettiarachchi Technical College, Galle. 22. A.S.C. De Silva Technical College, Rathmalana. 23. W.M. Thilakaratna Technical College, Monaragala. 24. P.K. Nimal Gunathilaka Technical College, Gampaha. PETITIONERS -Vs- 1. Thilak Hapangama Secretary to the Ministry of Vocational & Technical Training, \\\"Nipunatha Piyasa\\\" 354/2, Elvitigala Mw., Colombo 5. 1A. S.S. Hewapathirana Secretary to the Ministry of Vocational & Technical Training, \\\"Nipunatha Piyasa\\\" 354/2, Elvitigala Mw., Colombo 5. 1B. P. Ranepura Ministry of Science, Technology, Research, Skills Development & Vocational Training & Kandyan Heritage Affairs, \\\"Nipunatha Piyasa\\\", 354/2, Elwitigala Mw, Colombo 05. 2. H.I. Obeysekara Director General Department of Technical Education Training, P.O. Box 557, Olcott Mw, Colombo 10. 2A. H.C. Ambawatte Director General Department of Technical Education Training, P.O. Box 557, Olcott Mw, Colombo 10 2B. Mrs. P.N.K. Malalasekara, Director General Department of Technical Education Training, P.O Box 557, Olcott Mw, Colombo 10 AND OTHERS.
⚖ Hon. Justice S. Thurairaja, PC 📄 Download
05 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/155/2015
1. Sri Lanka Coconut Producers’ Co-operative Societies’ Union Limited, No. 127, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14. 2. H.A.D. Jayalath, Sri Lanka Coconut Producers’ Co-operative Societies’ Union Limited, No.127, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellants Vs. Stassen Exports Limited, No.883, Srimavo Bandaranaike Mawatha, Colombo 14. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent 1. Sri Lanka Coconut Producers’ Co-operative Societies’ Union Limited, No. 127, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14. 2. H.A.D. Jayalath, Sri Lanka Coconut Producers’ Co-operative Societies’ Union Limited, No.127, Grandpass Road, Colombo 14. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellants Vs. Stassen Exports Limited, No.883, Srimavo Bandaranaike Mawatha, Colombo 14. Defendant-Appellant-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
05 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/38/2020
1. John Lanka Deshapriya Ferdinando alias, Rasamanukula Warnakuladiya Kurukulasuriya Kolamba Mahapatabendi Mahavidanelage John Lanka Deshapriya Ferdinando, No. 31/5, 1st Lane, Galle Road, Moratuwella, Moratuwa. Currently residing at- No. 5, Bis Rue de La Charmoie 77810, Thomery, France. Appearing by his Power of Attorney holder, Derin Shermila Perera, No. 3/11, Duwana, Kochchikade. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. 2. John Andre Shevin Ferdinando, No. 5, Bis Rue de La Charmoie 77810, Thomery, France. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Appearing by his Power of Attorney holder, Derin Shermila Perera, No. 3/11, Duwana, Kochchikade. Vs. Mary Anne Koongahage, 31/5, 1st Lane, Moratuwella, Moratuwa. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT 1. John Lanka Deshapriya Ferdinando alias, Rasamanukula Warnakuladiya Kurukulasuriya Kolamba Mahapatabendi Mahavidanelage John Lanka Deshapriya Ferdinando, No. 31/5, 1st Lane, Galle Road, Moratuwella, Moratuwa. Currently residing at- No. 5, Bis Rue de La Charmoie 77810, Thomery, France. Appearing by his Power of Attorney holder, Derin Shermila Perera, No. 3/11, Duwana, Kochchikade. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs. 2. John Andre Shevin Ferdinando, No. 5, Bis Rue de La Charmoie 77810, Thomery, France. PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER-APPELLANT Appearing by his Power of Attorney holder, Derin Shermila Perera, No. 3/11, Duwana, Kochchikade. Vs. Mary Anne Koongahage, 31/5, 1st Lane, Moratuwella, Moratuwa. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon 📄 Download
05 Feb 2026 SC/FR/198/2025
Isula Damsith Jayaratne, 07/3B/17, Oval View Residencies, Borella. PETITIONER Vs. 1. University Grants Commission, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 2. Senior Professor Kapila Seneviratne, Chairman, University Grants Commission, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 3. Hon. Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, Prime Minister & Minister of Education, Higher Education and Vocational Education, Nipunatha Piyasa, Colombo 5. 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS Isula Damsith Jayaratne, 07/3B/17, Oval View Residencies, Borella. PETITIONER Vs. 1. University Grants Commission, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 2. Senior Professor Kapila Seneviratne, Chairman, University Grants Commission, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 3. Hon. Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, Prime Minister & Minister of Education, Higher Education and Vocational Education, Nipunatha Piyasa, Colombo 5. 4. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere 📄 Download
05 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/68/2021 WITH SC/APPEAL/69/2021
SC/APPEAL/68/2021: Jayalath Arachchige Daya Hemantha Jayalath No. 216, Hemantha Plastic Workers, Hettipola Road, Kuliyapitiya. DEFENDANT-APPELLANTPETITIONER Vs. Jayasinghe Arachchige Evon Ruth Nirosha Kabalewa, Deegalla PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTRESPONDENT In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal under Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.19 of 1990 as amended. Warnnalulasooriya Hashini Sara Nishadi Kabalewa, Deegalla PLAINTIFF Vs. Jayalath Arachchige Daya Hemantha Jayalath No. 216, Hemantha Plastic Workers, Hettipola Road, Kuliyapitiya. DEFENDANT; SC/APPEAL/69/2021: Jayalath Arachchige Daya Hemantha Jayalath No. 216, Hemantha Plastic Workers, Hettipola Road, Kuliyapitiya. DEFENDANT-APPELLANTPETITIONER Vs. Warnnalulasooriya Hashini Sara Nishadi Kabalewa, Deegalla PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTRESPONDENT SC/APPEAL/68/2021: Jayalath Arachchige Daya Hemantha Jayalath No. 216, Hemantha Plastic Workers, Hettipola Road, Kuliyapitiya. DEFENDANT-APPELLANTPETITIONER Vs. Jayasinghe Arachchige Evon Ruth Nirosha Kabalewa, Deegalla PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTRESPONDENT In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal under Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.19 of 1990 as amended. Warnnalulasooriya Hashini Sara Nishadi Kabalewa, Deegalla PLAINTIFF Vs. Jayalath Arachchige Daya Hemantha Jayalath No. 216, Hemantha Plastic Workers, Hettipola Road, Kuliyapitiya. DEFENDANT; SC/APPEAL/69/2021: Jayalath Arachchige Daya Hemantha Jayalath No. 216, Hemantha Plastic Workers, Hettipola Road, Kuliyapitiya. DEFENDANT-APPELLANTPETITIONER Vs. Warnnalulasooriya Hashini Sara Nishadi Kabalewa, Deegalla PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTRESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal under Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.19 of 1990 as amended. 📄 Download
05 Feb 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/11/2006
Seylan Bank Limited No. 33, Sir Baron Jayathilake Mawatha, Colombo 01. Presently at: Ceylinco-Seylan Towers No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Christian Melanie Rozairo 13 43/5, De Soysapura, Ratmalana Presently at: 15/C1, Haramaniz Lane Attidiya Dehiwala 2. Adrian De Rozairo B/4, 3/5, Soysa Flats, Moratuwa DEFENDANTSRESPONDENTS Seylan Bank Limited No. 33, Sir Baron Jayathilake Mawatha, Colombo 01. Presently at: Ceylinco-Seylan Towers No. 90, Galle Road, Colombo 03 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. 1. Christian Melanie Rozairo 13 43/5, De Soysapura, Ratmalana Presently at: 15/C1, Haramaniz Lane Attidiya Dehiwala 2. Adrian De Rozairo B/4, 3/5, Soysa Flats, Moratuwa DEFENDANTSRESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne In the matter of an Appeal against the Judgement of the learned Judge of the Commercial High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo dated 25.11.2005. 📄 Download
05 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/158/2017
1. Kariyapperuma Arachchige Dona Ramya Siriwardana (Deceased) 1a. Nimal Chandrasiri Pinnagoda 1b. Seran Mahesha Liyanaarachchi 1c. Raveen Thushara Liyanaarachchi 2. Kariyapperuma Arachchige Don Sarath Bandula Siriwardana 3. Kariyapperuma Arachchige Don Ravindra Maldeniya Siriwardana 4. Kariyapperuma Arachchige Dona Wasanthi Siriwardana All of, No. 07, Kendaliyadda Paluwa, Ganemulla. 7a. Amara Kariyapperuma (Deceased) No. 50, Kendaliyadda Paluwa, Ganemulla 7a(i). Chaminda Janaka Withana Arachchi 7a(ii). Mudithani Chaturika Piyadasa Withana Arachchi 7a(iii). Pushpika Chadranath Witana Arachchi All of, No. 50, Kendaliyadda Paluwa, Ganemulla 1st TO 4th AND 7a(i) TO 7a(iii) DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTSAPPELLANTS Vs. 1st and 2A. Welivita Angoda Liyanage Pathma Jayasinghe 1A and 2B. Hemamala Priyanthi Thirimanna 1B and 2C. Seetha Damayanthi Thirimanna 1C and 2D. Thanuja Dammika Thirimanna All of, No. 281, Kadawatha Road, Ganemulla. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTRESPONDENTS 5. Kariyapperuma Arachchige Don Herath Singho No. 50, Kendaliyadda Paluwa, Ganemulla 6. W.A.Sumanawathie No. 281A, Kadawatha Road, Ganemulla. 8. M.A. Rejanona (Deceased) No. 52, Kendaliyadda Paluwa, Ganemulla 9. S. Weerarathna 10. L. Jayasinghe 11. K.A. Jayasinghe 12. J.A.D.J.A. Ranasinghe 13. P.A.A. Ranasinghe 14. K.A. Jayasinghe All of, No. 52/1, Kendaliyadda Paluwa, Ganemulla 15. Pathma Ranasinghe, No. 281/A, Kadawatha Road, Ganemulla. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTRESPONDENTS 1. Kariyapperuma Arachchige Dona Ramya Siriwardana (Deceased) 1a. Nimal Chandrasiri Pinnagoda 1b. Seran Mahesha Liyanaarachchi 1c. Raveen Thushara Liyanaarachchi 2. Kariyapperuma Arachchige Don Sarath Bandula Siriwardana 3. Kariyapperuma Arachchige Don Ravindra Maldeniya Siriwardana 4. Kariyapperuma Arachchige Dona Wasanthi Siriwardana All of, No. 07, Kendaliyadda Paluwa, Ganemulla. 7a. Amara Kariyapperuma (Deceased) No. 50, Kendaliyadda Paluwa, Ganemulla 7a(i). Chaminda Janaka Withana Arachchi 7a(ii). Mudithani Chaturika Piyadasa Withana Arachchi 7a(iii). Pushpika Chadranath Witana Arachchi All of, No. 50, Kendaliyadda Paluwa, Ganemulla 1st TO 4th AND 7a(i) TO 7a(iii) DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTSAPPELLANTS Vs. 1st and 2A. Welivita Angoda Liyanage Pathma Jayasinghe 1A and 2B. Hemamala Priyanthi Thirimanna 1B and 2C. Seetha Damayanthi Thirimanna 1C and 2D. Thanuja Dammika Thirimanna All of, No. 281, Kadawatha Road, Ganemulla. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTRESPONDENTS 5. Kariyapperuma Arachchige Don Herath Singho No. 50, Kendaliyadda Paluwa, Ganemulla 6. W.A.Sumanawathie No. 281A, Kadawatha Road, Ganemulla. 8. M.A. Rejanona (Deceased) No. 52, Kendaliyadda Paluwa, Ganemulla 9. S. Weerarathna 10. L. Jayasinghe 11. K.A. Jayasinghe 12. J.A.D.J.A. Ranasinghe 13. P.A.A. Ranasinghe 14. K.A. Jayasinghe All of, No. 52/1, Kendaliyadda Paluwa, Ganemulla 15. Pathma Ranasinghe, No. 281/A, Kadawatha Road, Ganemulla. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTRESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Chief Justice P. Padman Surasena 📄 Download
05 Feb 2026 SC/CONTEMPT/1/2024
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Superior Court Complex, Colombo 12. Petitioner Vs. Jayathunga Patabandige Susil Priyantha Jayathunga , Attorney-at-Law, No.294/A, Kotupathgoda Road, Kumbuka West, Gonapola. Respondent The Registrar, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Superior Court Complex, Colombo 12. Petitioner Vs. Jayathunga Patabandige Susil Priyantha Jayathunga , Attorney-at-Law, No.294/A, Kotupathgoda Road, Kumbuka West, Gonapola. Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli 📄 Download
05 Feb 2026 SC/RULE/3/2024
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Supreme Court Complex, Colombo 12. Complainant Vs. Jayathunga Patabendige Susil Priyantha Jayatunga, Attorney-at-Law, No.294A, Kotupathgoda Road, Kumbuke West, Gonapola. Respondent The Registrar, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Supreme Court Complex, Colombo 12. Complainant Vs. Jayathunga Patabendige Susil Priyantha Jayatunga, Attorney-at-Law, No.294A, Kotupathgoda Road, Kumbuke West, Gonapola. Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli 📄 Download
05 Feb 2026 SC/RULE/5/2024
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Supreme Court Complex, Colombo 12. Complainant Vs. Jayathunga Patabendige Susil Priyantha Jayatunga, Attorney-at-Law, No.294A, Kotupathgoda Road, Kumbuke West, Gonapola. Respondent The Registrar, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Supreme Court Complex, Colombo 12. Complainant Vs. Jayathunga Patabendige Susil Priyantha Jayatunga, Attorney-at-Law, No.294A, Kotupathgoda Road, Kumbuke West, Gonapola. Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli 📄 Download
03 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/115/2018
Rathubadalge Ensohamy No. 537, Gurugalla Road, Thalduwa, Avissawella. (Deceased) DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT 1A.Dewanarayana Acharige Ariyawathie 1B.Dewanarayana Acharige Kamalawathie 1C.Dewanarayana Acharige Sriyalatha 1D.Dewanarayana Acharige Sunila 1E.Dewanarayana Acharige Wansawathie 1F.Dewanarayana Acharige Thilak Premalal All of No. 69/20, Mulwrusawa, Dehiowita. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANTS- RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS Vs. Naina Marikkar Ummu Suleila No. 437, Gurugalla Road, Thalduwa, Avissawella. (Deceased) PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT- RESPONDENT Mohamed Tawufeek Zeenathul Munauvara No. 63, Kumarimulla, Pugoda. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT- RESPONDENT Rathubadalge Ensohamy No. 537, Gurugalla Road, Thalduwa, Avissawella. (Deceased) DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT 1A.Dewanarayana Acharige Ariyawathie 1B.Dewanarayana Acharige Kamalawathie 1C.Dewanarayana Acharige Sriyalatha 1D.Dewanarayana Acharige Sunila 1E.Dewanarayana Acharige Wansawathie 1F.Dewanarayana Acharige Thilak Premalal All of No. 69/20, Mulwrusawa, Dehiowita. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANTS- RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS Vs. Naina Marikkar Ummu Suleila No. 437, Gurugalla Road, Thalduwa, Avissawella. (Deceased) PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT- RESPONDENT Mohamed Tawufeek Zeenathul Munauvara No. 63, Kumarimulla, Pugoda. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT- RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna 📄 Download
03 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/139/2022
Malwatte Valley Plantations PLC No. 280, Dam Street, Colombo 12. APPELLANT- APPELLANT Vs. The Commissioner General of Inland Revenue 14th Floor, Secretarial Branch, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT Malwatte Valley Plantations PLC No. 280, Dam Street, Colombo 12. APPELLANT- APPELLANT Vs. The Commissioner General of Inland Revenue 14th Floor, Secretarial Branch, Department of Inland Revenue, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna 📄 Download
03 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/185/2019
Priyanganie Sunimala Anokha Jayawardhana Fathima No. 9, Crestwood, Hokandara Road, Thalawathugoda. RESPONDENT- RESPONDENTPETITIONER- APPELLANT Vs. Fazal Mahamood Mushin No. 16/1, Galpotta Road, Nawala. APPLICANT- PETITIONERRESPONDENT- RESPONDENT Priyanganie Sunimala Anokha Jayawardhana Fathima No. 9, Crestwood, Hokandara Road, Thalawathugoda. RESPONDENT- RESPONDENTPETITIONER- APPELLANT Vs. Fazal Mahamood Mushin No. 16/1, Galpotta Road, Nawala. APPLICANT- PETITIONERRESPONDENT- RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna 📄 Download
03 Feb 2026 SC/FR/194/2021
1. Kottewathth Hewage Dharmakeerthi No. 9/6, Mission road, Pitakotte 2. Upali Lokusooriya No. 112/12, Raja Samaranayake Mawatha, Kurusa Junction, Alubomulla 3. Abayaratne Pathirannahelage Nihal Ananda Abayaratne No. 23, Grenier Road, Colombo 08 4. Jasentu Liyana Harsha Kumar Jayatilake 268/7, Rukmal Mayatha, Gothatuwa PETITIONER S - Vs 1. Mr. P.B.S.C. Nonis Director General of Customs Customs House, No. 40 , Main Colombo 11. 2. Hon. Justice Jagath Balapatabendi Chairman The Public Service Commission 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 3. Mrs. Indrani Sugathadasa Member The Public Service Commission 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 4. Mr. Suntaram Arumainayaham Member The Public Service Commission 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. and Others 1. Kottewathth Hewage Dharmakeerthi No. 9/6, Mission road, Pitakotte 2. Upali Lokusooriya No. 112/12, Raja Samaranayake Mawatha, Kurusa Junction, Alubomulla 3. Abayaratne Pathirannahelage Nihal Ananda Abayaratne No. 23, Grenier Road, Colombo 08 4. Jasentu Liyana Harsha Kumar Jayatilake 268/7, Rukmal Mayatha, Gothatuwa PETITIONER S - Vs 1. Mr. P.B.S.C. Nonis Director General of Customs Customs House, No. 40 , Main Colombo 11. 2. Hon. Justice Jagath Balapatabendi Chairman The Public Service Commission 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 3. Mrs. Indrani Sugathadasa Member The Public Service Commission 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. 4. Mr. Suntaram Arumainayaham Member The Public Service Commission 1200/9, Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla. and Others
⚖ Hon. Justice S. Thurairaja, PC 📄 Download
03 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/160/2015
H.M. Suddharma Kumari, Of Chaminda Kumara Mawatha, Weherawatta, Wehera, Kurunegala 2nd Plaintiff- Respondent-Appellant Vs. Kiriya Devayalage Siripala, Weherawatta, Wehera, Kurunegala Defendant- Appellant- Respondent Hikkaduwa Liyanage Sudanth Priyankara, Of Chaminda Kumara Mawatha, Weherawatta, Wehera, Kurunegala 1st Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent H.M. Suddharma Kumari, Of Chaminda Kumara Mawatha, Weherawatta, Wehera, Kurunegala 2nd Plaintiff- Respondent-Appellant Vs. Kiriya Devayalage Siripala, Weherawatta, Wehera, Kurunegala Defendant- Appellant- Respondent Hikkaduwa Liyanage Sudanth Priyankara, Of Chaminda Kumara Mawatha, Weherawatta, Wehera, Kurunegala 1st Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe 📄 Download
03 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/241/2016
W.A. Jayantha Thamel, Galmuruwa Depot, Madampe. Added Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Liyanage Bandaappuhamy, Bangadeniya. (Deceased) 2. Kirindawa Liyanage Nimal Jayapala, Weherakele, Bangadeniya. 3. Liyanage Somwathi, Weherakele, Bangadeniya. 4. Wasala Mudalige Kusumalatha, Jaya Mawatha, Natthandiya Road, Marawila. Defendants- Appellants- Respondents W.A. Jayantha Thamel, Galmuruwa Depot, Madampe. Added Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Liyanage Bandaappuhamy, Bangadeniya. (Deceased) 2. Kirindawa Liyanage Nimal Jayapala, Weherakele, Bangadeniya. 3. Liyanage Somwathi, Weherakele, Bangadeniya. 4. Wasala Mudalige Kusumalatha, Jaya Mawatha, Natthandiya Road, Marawila. Defendants- Appellants- Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe 📄 Download
03 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/19/2022 with SC/SPL LA/414/2019
Seevananthyagam Kanjana C12/01/02, Soysa Flats, Soysapura, Moratuwa Applicant- Appellant- Appellant 1. University of Colombo Kumarathunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03 2. Vice Chancellor, University of Colombo, Kumarathunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03 Respondent- Respondent- Respondent Seevananthyagam Kanjana C12/01/02, Soysa Flats, Soysapura, Moratuwa Applicant- Appellant- Appellant 1. University of Colombo Kumarathunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03 2. Vice Chancellor, University of Colombo, Kumarathunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03 Respondent- Respondent- Respondent
⚖ Hon. Kumuduni Wickremasinghe J Dissenting Hon. Janak De Silva J 📄 Download
03 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/19/2022 with SC/SPL LA/414/2019
Seevananthyagam Kanjana C12/01/02, Soysa Flats, Soysapura, Moratuwa Applicant- Appellant- Appellant 1. University of Colombo Kumarathunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03 2. Vice Chancellor, University of Colombo, Kumarathunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03 Respondent- Respondent- Respondent Seevananthyagam Kanjana C12/01/02, Soysa Flats, Soysapura, Moratuwa Applicant- Appellant- Appellant 1. University of Colombo Kumarathunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03 2. Vice Chancellor, University of Colombo, Kumarathunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03 Respondent- Respondent- Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe 📄 Download
03 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/111/2019
Rajapurage Wilson, (deceased) No.100/4, Old Kesbewa Road, Kattiya Junction, Nugegoda. Formerly – No. 102, Old Kesbewa Road, Kattiya Junction, Nugegoda. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- APPELLANT Sella Kapuge Siriyawathi Silva alias Sella Kapuge Shriyani Silva, No. 100/4, Old Kesbewa Road, Kattiya Junction, Nugegoda. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT- RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. Meepagalage Nihal Perera, No.411/5, High Level Road, Makumbura, Pannipitiya. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT- RESPONDENT 1. Rajapurage Niroshani 2. Rajapurage Rosani 3. Rajapurage Winson 4. Rajapurage Harshani RESPONDENTS Rajapurage Wilson, (deceased) No.100/4, Old Kesbewa Road, Kattiya Junction, Nugegoda. Formerly – No. 102, Old Kesbewa Road, Kattiya Junction, Nugegoda. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- APPELLANT Sella Kapuge Siriyawathi Silva alias Sella Kapuge Shriyani Silva, No. 100/4, Old Kesbewa Road, Kattiya Junction, Nugegoda. SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT- RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. Meepagalage Nihal Perera, No.411/5, High Level Road, Makumbura, Pannipitiya. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT- RESPONDENT 1. Rajapurage Niroshani 2. Rajapurage Rosani 3. Rajapurage Winson 4. Rajapurage Harshani RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon 📄 Download
02 Feb 2026 SC/APPEAL/59/2020
Abdul Hussain Musheeda Begam, No. 7/3, St. Sebastian Street, Colombo 12. 9TH DEFENDANT-APPELLANT- APPELLANT Vs. 1. Mohamed Rauf Ahamed Nuhuman, No. 22, Hildon Place, Colombo 04. (Now Deceased) 1A. Mohamed Hadi Siththi Hirrziya, 1B. Mohamed Zakeer, 1C. Fathima Zeinab, 1D. Siththy Zahara, All of them, No. 22, Hildon Place, Colombo 04 2. Mohamed Rauf Hassan Bari, No. 22, Hildon Place, Colombo 04. 3. Mohamed Rauf Furkan Ali, No. 22, Hildon Place, Colombo 04. 4. Mohamed Rauf Ismath Asmeer, No. 22. Hildon Place, Colombo 04. 5. Mohamed Rauf Samsul Samaan, Colombo 04. (Now Deceased) 5A. Sakeena Zaki, No. 22, Hildon Place, Colombo 04. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENTS 1. Kaliyur Rahaman Ahamed Siddeek, No. 150, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. 2. Polwattage Wijeratne, No. 277/9, Negombo Road, Peliyagoda. (Now Deceased). 2A. A. A. A. Swarnalatha Wijeratne, No. 33, Raddolugama, Lanka Land, Seeduwa. 3. Sellathurai Thambiraja, No. 31/1, Mayfield Road, Colombo 13. (Now Deceased) 3A. Malarmahal Thambiraja, No. 31/1, Mayfield Road, Colombo 13. 4. Malarmahal Thambiraja, No. 31/1, Mayfield Road, Colombo 13. 5. Kannuthurai Devadas, No. 11/1A, Schofield Place, Colombo 03. 6. Parameshwari Devadas, No. 11/1A, Schofield Place, Colombo 03. 7. Abdul Hussain Mumtaz Hussain, No. 33/3, Akbar Mawatha, Colombo 12. (Deceased). 8. Another Person DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENTS Abdul Hussain Musheeda Begam, No. 7/3, St. Sebastian Street, Colombo 12. 9TH DEFENDANT-APPELLANT- APPELLANT Vs. 1. Mohamed Rauf Ahamed Nuhuman, No. 22, Hildon Place, Colombo 04. (Now Deceased) 1A. Mohamed Hadi Siththi Hirrziya, 1B. Mohamed Zakeer, 1C. Fathima Zeinab, 1D. Siththy Zahara, All of them, No. 22, Hildon Place, Colombo 04 2. Mohamed Rauf Hassan Bari, No. 22, Hildon Place, Colombo 04. 3. Mohamed Rauf Furkan Ali, No. 22, Hildon Place, Colombo 04. 4. Mohamed Rauf Ismath Asmeer, No. 22. Hildon Place, Colombo 04. 5. Mohamed Rauf Samsul Samaan, Colombo 04. (Now Deceased) 5A. Sakeena Zaki, No. 22, Hildon Place, Colombo 04. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENTS 1. Kaliyur Rahaman Ahamed Siddeek, No. 150, Peradeniya Road, Kandy. 2. Polwattage Wijeratne, No. 277/9, Negombo Road, Peliyagoda. (Now Deceased). 2A. A. A. A. Swarnalatha Wijeratne, No. 33, Raddolugama, Lanka Land, Seeduwa. 3. Sellathurai Thambiraja, No. 31/1, Mayfield Road, Colombo 13. (Now Deceased) 3A. Malarmahal Thambiraja, No. 31/1, Mayfield Road, Colombo 13. 4. Malarmahal Thambiraja, No. 31/1, Mayfield Road, Colombo 13. 5. Kannuthurai Devadas, No. 11/1A, Schofield Place, Colombo 03. 6. Parameshwari Devadas, No. 11/1A, Schofield Place, Colombo 03. 7. Abdul Hussain Mumtaz Hussain, No. 33/3, Akbar Mawatha, Colombo 12. (Deceased). 8. Another Person DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT- RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon 📄 Download
30 Jan 2026 SC/FR/125/2020
Thevatheepan Priyadharshan, Kanapathipillai Street, Arayampathy East, Arayampathy. PETITIONER Vs. 1. U. A. L. Udahawatta Superintendent of Police, Director/ Police recruitments, No. 375, Sri Sambuthava Jayanthi Mawatha, Colombo 06. 2. The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 3. Major General (Retd) G.D.H. Kamal Gunaratne, Secretary, Ministry of Defence, No. 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 4. N.W.E. Karalliyadda, Chairman, National Police Commission, BMICH, Block 9, Bauddaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 5. Savithri D. Wijaysekera, 6. Y. L. M. Zawahir, 7. Tilak Collure, 8. Gamini Nawaratne, 9. Asoka Wijayasekera, 10. G. Jeyakumar, 5th to 10th Respondents are, Members, National Police Commission, BMICH, Block 9, Bauddaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 11. Nishantha A. Weerasinghe, Secretary, BMICH, Block 9, Bauddaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 12. The National Police Commission, BMICH, Block 9, Bauddaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 13. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS Thevatheepan Priyadharshan, Kanapathipillai Street, Arayampathy East, Arayampathy. PETITIONER Vs. 1. U. A. L. Udahawatta Superintendent of Police, Director/ Police recruitments, No. 375, Sri Sambuthava Jayanthi Mawatha, Colombo 06. 2. The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 3. Major General (Retd) G.D.H. Kamal Gunaratne, Secretary, Ministry of Defence, No. 15/5, Baladaksha Mawatha, Colombo 03. 4. N.W.E. Karalliyadda, Chairman, National Police Commission, BMICH, Block 9, Bauddaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 5. Savithri D. Wijaysekera, 6. Y. L. M. Zawahir, 7. Tilak Collure, 8. Gamini Nawaratne, 9. Asoka Wijayasekera, 10. G. Jeyakumar, 5th to 10th Respondents are, Members, National Police Commission, BMICH, Block 9, Bauddaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 11. Nishantha A. Weerasinghe, Secretary, BMICH, Block 9, Bauddaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 12. The National Police Commission, BMICH, Block 9, Bauddaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07. 13. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon. Chief Justice P. Padman Surasena 📄 Download
30 Jan 2026 SC/FR/356/2021, SC/FR/358/2021, SC/FR/364/2021, SC/FR/365/2021, SC/FR/402/2021, SC/FR/408/2021, SC/FR/432/2021
1. E. M. I. B. Wijerathna, No. 48, Rambodawatta Road, Kengalla 2. B. M. A. S. K. Senarathna, No. 1/05, Anderson Flats, Narahenpita 3. M. S. Abesinghe, 1A, Joseph Frazer Road, Colombo 5 4. D. M. W. G. L. G. Dissanayake, New Road, Lihiniyawatta, Palathota, Kalutara South 5. A. D. Kariyawasam, No. 22/A, Horaketiya, Kuda Uduwa, Horana 6. D. H. S. A. Karunarathna, No. 144/A, Pilominawatta, Dodangoda 7. K. D. R. Senadeera, No. 12/2, Anderson Flat, Narahenpita, Colombo 5 8. A. W. A. Bandaranayake, 71/123, Hewahata Road, Thalwaththa, Kandy 9. A. P. D. S. Aththaragame, No. 1/7, Anderson Flat, Narahenpita, Colombo 05 10. S. R. D. K. C. Dharmapriya, No. 37/2, Galwala Hena Road, Udumulla, Mulleriyawa 11. R. W. W. M. R. T. P. Halangoda, No. 42, Uduwawala, Katugastota 12. P. M. C. R. Tennakoon, “Maalika”, Kandalama Road, Dambulla 13. M.B.N. Nuwansiri, No 83, Upeksha, Puhabugoda, Dodangoda 14. H.A.A.P. Ranasinghe, No H/143/2/B, Maligawatta, Karawanella, Ruwanwella 15. N.P.Welikala, No 78D, Denigahapitiya Road, Madulawa, Padukka 16. R.D.J.Pushpakumara, No 376/5, Walihena South, Kochchikade 17. W.H.C.K.Fenando, No 483/7, Samanwila Watta, Demanhandiya, Katana 18. K.W.L. Wickramarathna, No 362/06, Delgas Handiya, Agalawatta AND OTHERS 1. E. M. I. B. Wijerathna, No. 48, Rambodawatta Road, Kengalla 2. B. M. A. S. K. Senarathna, No. 1/05, Anderson Flats, Narahenpita 3. M. S. Abesinghe, 1A, Joseph Frazer Road, Colombo 5 4. D. M. W. G. L. G. Dissanayake, New Road, Lihiniyawatta, Palathota, Kalutara South 5. A. D. Kariyawasam, No. 22/A, Horaketiya, Kuda Uduwa, Horana 6. D. H. S. A. Karunarathna, No. 144/A, Pilominawatta, Dodangoda 7. K. D. R. Senadeera, No. 12/2, Anderson Flat, Narahenpita, Colombo 5 8. A. W. A. Bandaranayake, 71/123, Hewahata Road, Thalwaththa, Kandy 9. A. P. D. S. Aththaragame, No. 1/7, Anderson Flat, Narahenpita, Colombo 05 10. S. R. D. K. C. Dharmapriya, No. 37/2, Galwala Hena Road, Udumulla, Mulleriyawa 11. R. W. W. M. R. T. P. Halangoda, No. 42, Uduwawala, Katugastota 12. P. M. C. R. Tennakoon, “Maalika”, Kandalama Road, Dambulla 13. M.B.N. Nuwansiri, No 83, Upeksha, Puhabugoda, Dodangoda 14. H.A.A.P. Ranasinghe, No H/143/2/B, Maligawatta, Karawanella, Ruwanwella 15. N.P.Welikala, No 78D, Denigahapitiya Road, Madulawa, Padukka 16. R.D.J.Pushpakumara, No 376/5, Walihena South, Kochchikade 17. W.H.C.K.Fenando, No 483/7, Samanwila Watta, Demanhandiya, Katana 18. K.W.L. Wickramarathna, No 362/06, Delgas Handiya, Agalawatta AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon. Chief Justice P. Padman Surasena 📄 Download
30 Jan 2026 SC/FR/503/2019
Lebby Thambi Jesmin, Ellawewa, Hijjapura, Kebethigollawa. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Roshan Sanjeewa, Officer-in-Charge, Horowpathana Police Station, Horowpathana. 2. 28071 Premaratne, Police Sergeant, Horowpathana Police Station, Horowpathana. 3. 10516 Sisira, Police Sergeant, Horowpathana Police Station, Horowpathana. 4. 33685 Jayathilaka, Police Constable, Horowpathana Police Station, Horowpathana. 5. Officer-in-Charge, Kebethigollawa Police Station, Kebethigollawa. 6. Officer-in-Charge, Terrorist Investigation Division, Colombo 01. 7. Thilina Hewapathirane, Superintendent of Police, Anuradhapura. 8. Inspector General of police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 9. Hon. Attorney General , Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS Lebby Thambi Jesmin, Ellawewa, Hijjapura, Kebethigollawa. PETITIONER Vs. 1. Roshan Sanjeewa, Officer-in-Charge, Horowpathana Police Station, Horowpathana. 2. 28071 Premaratne, Police Sergeant, Horowpathana Police Station, Horowpathana. 3. 10516 Sisira, Police Sergeant, Horowpathana Police Station, Horowpathana. 4. 33685 Jayathilaka, Police Constable, Horowpathana Police Station, Horowpathana. 5. Officer-in-Charge, Kebethigollawa Police Station, Kebethigollawa. 6. Officer-in-Charge, Terrorist Investigation Division, Colombo 01. 7. Thilina Hewapathirane, Superintendent of Police, Anuradhapura. 8. Inspector General of police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 9. Hon. Attorney General , Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Chief Justice P. Padman Surasena 📄 Download
30 Jan 2026 SC/FR/500/2019
Mohideed Bawa Naufer No. 169, Kiwlekada, Horowpathana. Currently at the Wariyapola Remand Prison PETITIONER Vs. 1. Roshan Sanjeewa, Officer-in-Charge, Horowpathana Police Station, Horowpathana. 2. 28071 Premaratne, Police Sergeant, Horowpathana Police Station, Horowpathana. 3. 10516 Sisira, Police Sergeant, Horowpathana Police Station, Horowpathana. 4. 33685 Jayathilaka, Police Constable, Horowpathana Police Station, Horowpathana. 5. Officer-in-Charge, Kebethigollawa Police Station, Kebethigollawa. 6. Officer-in-Charge, Terrorist Investigation Division, Colombo 01. 7. Thilina Hewapathirane, Superintendent of Police, Anuradhapura. 8. Inspector General of police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 9. Hon. Attorney General , Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS Mohideed Bawa Naufer No. 169, Kiwlekada, Horowpathana. Currently at the Wariyapola Remand Prison PETITIONER Vs. 1. Roshan Sanjeewa, Officer-in-Charge, Horowpathana Police Station, Horowpathana. 2. 28071 Premaratne, Police Sergeant, Horowpathana Police Station, Horowpathana. 3. 10516 Sisira, Police Sergeant, Horowpathana Police Station, Horowpathana. 4. 33685 Jayathilaka, Police Constable, Horowpathana Police Station, Horowpathana. 5. Officer-in-Charge, Kebethigollawa Police Station, Kebethigollawa. 6. Officer-in-Charge, Terrorist Investigation Division, Colombo 01. 7. Thilina Hewapathirane, Superintendent of Police, Anuradhapura. 8. Inspector General of police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 9. Hon. Attorney General , Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Chief Justice P. Padman Surasena 📄 Download
30 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/99/2018
1. Lt. General Crishantha de Silva, Former Commander of the Sri Lanka Army, Army Headquarters, Colombo. 1(A) Mahesh Senanayake, Present Commander of the Sri Lanka Army, Army Headquarters, Colombo. 1(b)Lieutenant General Lokugan Hewage Shavendra Chandana Silva, Commander of the Army, Army Headquarters, Colombo. 2. Lt.Col.L.R. Illukkumbura Army Headquarters, Colombo. 3. Major.C.C. Weeraratne Sri Lanka Volunteer Force Headquarters, Battaramulla. 4. Capt.P.A.S. Wijesinghe, Regimental Headquarters, Wijayaba Infantry Regiment, Boyagane, Kurunegala. Respondent-Appellants Vs. Lt. Col.R.D. Gamini Ranwela, 404-A, Batuwatte, Ragama Petitioner-Respondent Major K.R.S.P.K. Kahagalle, 5th Batallion, Sri Lanka Light Infantry Army, Army Camp Nikaweva, Welioya, Parakramapura. 5th Respondent-Respondent 1. Lt. General Crishantha de Silva, Former Commander of the Sri Lanka Army, Army Headquarters, Colombo. 1(A) Mahesh Senanayake, Present Commander of the Sri Lanka Army, Army Headquarters, Colombo. 1(b)Lieutenant General Lokugan Hewage Shavendra Chandana Silva, Commander of the Army, Army Headquarters, Colombo. 2. Lt.Col.L.R. Illukkumbura Army Headquarters, Colombo. 3. Major.C.C. Weeraratne Sri Lanka Volunteer Force Headquarters, Battaramulla. 4. Capt.P.A.S. Wijesinghe, Regimental Headquarters, Wijayaba Infantry Regiment, Boyagane, Kurunegala. Respondent-Appellants Vs. Lt. Col.R.D. Gamini Ranwela, 404-A, Batuwatte, Ragama Petitioner-Respondent Major K.R.S.P.K. Kahagalle, 5th Batallion, Sri Lanka Light Infantry Army, Army Camp Nikaweva, Welioya, Parakramapura. 5th Respondent-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Janak De Silva 📄 Download
30 Jan 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/12/2021
Carbon Products Lanka (Pvt) Ltd. Dunkannawa, Nattandiya. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. Commercial Bank of Ceylon PLC No. 21, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT Carbon Products Lanka (Pvt) Ltd. Dunkannawa, Nattandiya. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs. Commercial Bank of Ceylon PLC No. 21, Bristol Street, Colombo 01. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon 📄 Download
30 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/169/2019
Hethambi Prabakaran alias Kumara, No.258, Muthuwella, Mahaweli Sinhapura, Walikanda. Presently at Walikada Prison 1st Accused-Appellant- Appellant Vs. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department. Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent- Respondent Hethambi Prabakaran alias Kumara, No.258, Muthuwella, Mahaweli Sinhapura, Walikanda. Presently at Walikada Prison 1st Accused-Appellant- Appellant Vs. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department. Colombo 12. Complainant-Respondent- Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Achala Wengappuli 📄 Download
30 Jan 2026 SC/FR/398/2019
1. S.J.K. Hemalatha, No 19/08, Mahawatta North, Kundasale. 2. W.A.S. Rohana, No. 16, Wadumulla, Dewalapola. 3. K.K.A. Jayawardena, No.48, Seebel Park, Melagoda, Wanchwala. Petitioners Vs. 1. National Savings Bank PLC. 2. S.D.N. Perera, General Manager/ CEO, National Savings Bank PLC. 2(a) Mrs. Shashi Kandambi General Manager/ CEO, National Savings Bank PLC. 3. M. P. A. W. Peiris Deputy General Manager (Branch Operation) 4. B.P.J. Gunasekera, Deputy General (International Division) Manager. 5. M K.S. Weerasena, Assistant General Manager (Training). 6. M A.M.A.B. Alahakoon Assistant Manager (Transport Division). 7. H.P. Janaka Assistant Manager (Mail Division) 8. G.D.S. Pieris, Assistant Manager (Credit Division) 1st to 8th Respondents all of; National Savings House, 255, Galle road Colombo 3. 9. K.R.M. Perera, Manager, Raddolugama Branch of the National Savings Bank. 10. B. M. A. F. B. Waththegedara Manager Rideegama branch National Saving Bank. 11. H. K. G. N. Wickramanayake Manager Kaduwela Branch, National Savings Bank. 12. Deric Perera, Assistant Manager, Mahabage Branch. 13. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department Colombo 12. Respondents 1. S.J.K. Hemalatha, No 19/08, Mahawatta North, Kundasale. 2. W.A.S. Rohana, No. 16, Wadumulla, Dewalapola. 3. K.K.A. Jayawardena, No.48, Seebel Park, Melagoda, Wanchwala. Petitioners Vs. 1. National Savings Bank PLC. 2. S.D.N. Perera, General Manager/ CEO, National Savings Bank PLC. 2(a) Mrs. Shashi Kandambi General Manager/ CEO, National Savings Bank PLC. 3. M. P. A. W. Peiris Deputy General Manager (Branch Operation) 4. B.P.J. Gunasekera, Deputy General (International Division) Manager. 5. M K.S. Weerasena, Assistant General Manager (Training). 6. M A.M.A.B. Alahakoon Assistant Manager (Transport Division). 7. H.P. Janaka Assistant Manager (Mail Division) 8. G.D.S. Pieris, Assistant Manager (Credit Division) 1st to 8th Respondents all of; National Savings House, 255, Galle road Colombo 3. 9. K.R.M. Perera, Manager, Raddolugama Branch of the National Savings Bank. 10. B. M. A. F. B. Waththegedara Manager Rideegama branch National Saving Bank. 11. H. K. G. N. Wickramanayake Manager Kaduwela Branch, National Savings Bank. 12. Deric Perera, Assistant Manager, Mahabage Branch. 13. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General\'s Department Colombo 12. Respondents
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
30 Jan 2026 SC/FR/442/2021
Gnanatissa Samarasinghe, Deniyakade, Mal athowita Road, Higgashena, Kuruwita. Petitioner Vs. 1. M.N. Sisira Kumara, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Human Resources Management & International Relations Range, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 2. K.P. Mahinda Gunaratne, Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police – Sabaragamuwa Province, Senior Deputy Inspector-General’s Office, Pothgul Viharaya Mawatha, Ratnapura. 2A. P.P.S.M. Dharmaratne, Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police – Sabaragamuwa Province, Senior Deputy Inspector-General’s Office, Pothgul Viharaya Mawatha, Ratnapura. 2B. K.P. Mahinda Gunaratne, Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police – Sabaragamuwa Province, Senior Deputy Inspector-General’s Office, Pothgul Viharaya Mawatha, Ratnapura. 3. G.S. Priyanka Silva, Officer-in-Charge Eheliyagoda Police Station, Eheliyagoda. 3A. Kumara Pallewala (Chief Inspector), Officer-in-Charge, Eheliyagoda Police Station, Eheliyagoda. 4. C.D. Wikremaratne, Inspector-General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 4A. Deshabandu Thennakoon, Inspector- General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 4B. Priyantha Weerasooriya, Inspector-General of Police, Sri Lanka Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 02. 5. Major General (Retd.) Jagath Alwis, Secretary, Ministry of Public Security, 14th Floor, ‘Suhurupaya’, Battaramulla. 5A. Secretary, Ministry of Public Security, 14th Floor, ‘Suhurupaya’, Battaramulla. 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 12. Respondents Gnanatissa Samarasinghe, Deniyakade, Mal athowita Road, Higgashena, Kuruwita. Petitioner Vs. 1. M.N. Sisira Kumara, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Human Resources Management & International Relations Range, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 2. K.P. Mahinda Gunaratne, Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police – Sabaragamuwa Province, Senior Deputy Inspector-General’s Office, Pothgul Viharaya Mawatha, Ratnapura. 2A. P.P.S.M. Dharmaratne, Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police – Sabaragamuwa Province, Senior Deputy Inspector-General’s Office, Pothgul Viharaya Mawatha, Ratnapura. 2B. K.P. Mahinda Gunaratne, Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police – Sabaragamuwa Province, Senior Deputy Inspector-General’s Office, Pothgul Viharaya Mawatha, Ratnapura. 3. G.S. Priyanka Silva, Officer-in-Charge Eheliyagoda Police Station, Eheliyagoda. 3A. Kumara Pallewala (Chief Inspector), Officer-in-Charge, Eheliyagoda Police Station, Eheliyagoda. 4. C.D. Wikremaratne, Inspector-General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 4A. Deshabandu Thennakoon, Inspector- General of Police Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 4B. Priyantha Weerasooriya, Inspector-General of Police, Sri Lanka Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 02. 5. Major General (Retd.) Jagath Alwis, Secretary, Ministry of Public Security, 14th Floor, ‘Suhurupaya’, Battaramulla. 5A. Secretary, Ministry of Public Security, 14th Floor, ‘Suhurupaya’, Battaramulla. 6. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Hulftsdorp Street, Colombo 12. Respondents
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
30 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/143/2016
1. Mohammed Iqbal Sithy Hinaya 2. Mohammed Sareef Alavudeen Both are No. 07, Sub Post Office Road, Akkaraipattu Defendant-Respondent- Petitioners Vs. 1. Salithamby Mohammed Shareef 2. Mohammed Shareef Perosa Both are No. 250, AVV Road, Akkaraipattu Plantiff-Appellant- Respondents 1. Mohammed Iqbal Sithy Hinaya 2. Mohammed Sareef Alavudeen Both are No. 07, Sub Post Office Road, Akkaraipattu Defendant-Respondent- Petitioners Vs. 1. Salithamby Mohammed Shareef 2. Mohammed Shareef Perosa Both are No. 250, AVV Road, Akkaraipattu Plantiff-Appellant- Respondents
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
29 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/133/2024
U.L. Raihan Umma No. 2, Main Street, Gurutalawa. Respondent-Appellant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. M.L.M. Vineetha Chandrani Sirisevana, 6th Mile Post, Gurutalawa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent U.L. Raihan Umma No. 2, Main Street, Gurutalawa. Respondent-Appellant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. M.L.M. Vineetha Chandrani Sirisevana, 6th Mile Post, Gurutalawa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Yasantha Kodagoda, PC In the matter of an Appeal under Article 128 of the Constitution and in terms of Section 9 of the High Court of Provisions (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 as amended. 📄 Download
28 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/248/2025
Mervynsons Pvt Ltd No. 98, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. 20th Respondent-Appellant Vs. Hayleys Lifesciences (Pvt) Limited No. 25, Foster Lane, Colombo 10. Petitioner-Respondent 1. Deputy Director General/Director, Division of Biomedical Engineering Services, No. 27, De Seram Place, Colombo 10. 2. Chairman, Divisional Procurement Committee, Division of Biomedical Engineering Services, No. 27, De Seram Place, Colombo 10. 3. Member, Divisional Procurement Committee, Division of Biomedical Engineering Services, No. 27, De Seram Place, Colombo 10. 4. Member, Divisional Procurement Committee, Division of Biomedical Engineering Services, No. 27, De Seram Place, Colombo 10. 5. Member, Divisional Procurement Committee, Division of Biomedical Engineering Services, No. 27, De Seram Place, Colombo 10. and Others Mervynsons Pvt Ltd No. 98, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. 20th Respondent-Appellant Vs. Hayleys Lifesciences (Pvt) Limited No. 25, Foster Lane, Colombo 10. Petitioner-Respondent 1. Deputy Director General/Director, Division of Biomedical Engineering Services, No. 27, De Seram Place, Colombo 10. 2. Chairman, Divisional Procurement Committee, Division of Biomedical Engineering Services, No. 27, De Seram Place, Colombo 10. 3. Member, Divisional Procurement Committee, Division of Biomedical Engineering Services, No. 27, De Seram Place, Colombo 10. 4. Member, Divisional Procurement Committee, Division of Biomedical Engineering Services, No. 27, De Seram Place, Colombo 10. 5. Member, Divisional Procurement Committee, Division of Biomedical Engineering Services, No. 27, De Seram Place, Colombo 10. and Others
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
28 Jan 2026 SC/CONTEMPT/6/2025
Hayleys Lifesciences (Pvt) Limited, No. 25, Foster Lane, Colombo 10. Also at No. 400, Deans Road, Colombo 07. Complainant Vs. 1. Pathirana Karunrathne Sujeewa Prasanna Sandares, Manager Projects, Mervynsons Pvt Ltd, No. 98, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. And also at No. 596/2A, Halgahadeniya Road, Kalapaluwawa. 2. Mervynsons Pvt Ltd, No. 98, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. 3. Randolph Nihal Desmond Peiris, Director, Mervynsons Pvt Ltd. No. 98, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. Also at No. 81 A, Kynsey Arcade, Kynsey Road, Colombo 08. 4. Simon Martin Peiris, Director, Mervynsons Pvt Ltd. No. 98, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. Also at No. 80D, Ward Place, Colombo 07. Also at No. 93 Goldhurst Terrace, London NW63HA, England. 5. Niall Keiran Peiris, Director, Mervynsons Pvt Ltd, No. 98, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. Also at No. 80D, Ward Place, Colombo 07. Also at No. 93 Goldhurst Terrace, London NW63HA, England. Accused Hayleys Lifesciences (Pvt) Limited, No. 25, Foster Lane, Colombo 10. Also at No. 400, Deans Road, Colombo 07. Complainant Vs. 1. Pathirana Karunrathne Sujeewa Prasanna Sandares, Manager Projects, Mervynsons Pvt Ltd, No. 98, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. And also at No. 596/2A, Halgahadeniya Road, Kalapaluwawa. 2. Mervynsons Pvt Ltd, No. 98, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. 3. Randolph Nihal Desmond Peiris, Director, Mervynsons Pvt Ltd. No. 98, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. Also at No. 81 A, Kynsey Arcade, Kynsey Road, Colombo 08. 4. Simon Martin Peiris, Director, Mervynsons Pvt Ltd. No. 98, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. Also at No. 80D, Ward Place, Colombo 07. Also at No. 93 Goldhurst Terrace, London NW63HA, England. 5. Niall Keiran Peiris, Director, Mervynsons Pvt Ltd, No. 98, Norris Canal Road, Colombo 10. Also at No. 80D, Ward Place, Colombo 07. Also at No. 93 Goldhurst Terrace, London NW63HA, England. Accused
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
28 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/97/2014
Hasitha Nayanjana Munasinghe Wickremaratne, No.192, Main Street, Kantale Substituted Defendant- Respondent-Appellant Vs. Balachandra Arachchilage Kalyani Mallika, Of 280/4, Bodhiya Road Kantale. Plaintiff- Appellant- Respondent Hasitha Nayanjana Munasinghe Wickremaratne, No.192, Main Street, Kantale Substituted Defendant- Respondent-Appellant Vs. Balachandra Arachchilage Kalyani Mallika, Of 280/4, Bodhiya Road Kantale. Plaintiff- Appellant- Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe In the matter of an Appeal under Section 5C(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No: 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No: 54 of 2006. 📄 Download
28 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/110/2023
Soorya Balashakthi Lankapura, No. 13/36, MalwaƩ e Temple Road, Dangedara, Galle. APPLICANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT Vs. Sarvodaya Economic Development Services (Guarantee) Limited, No. 98, RawatawaƩ e Road, Moratuwa. RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT Soorya Balashakthi Lankapura, No. 13/36, MalwaƩ e Temple Road, Dangedara, Galle. APPLICANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT Vs. Sarvodaya Economic Development Services (Guarantee) Limited, No. 98, RawatawaƩ e Road, Moratuwa. RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the maƩ er of an appeal in terms of ArƟ cle 128(1) of the ConsƟ tuƟ on of the DemocraƟ c Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read with Paragraph 3(b) of ArƟ cle 154(P) of the ConsƟ tuƟ on and SecƟ on 3 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 19 of 1990 SC Appeal No: 110/2023 HC Galle No. HC/LT/AP No. 1372/2019 LT Case No: 04/G/94/2016 Soorya Balashakthi Lankapura, No. 13/36, MalwaƩ e Temple Road, Dangedara, Galle. APPLICANT Vs. Sarvodaya Economic Development Services (Guarantee) Limited, No. 98, RawatawaƩ e Road, Moratuwa. RESPONDENT And between Soorya Balashakthi Lankapura, No. 13/36, MalwaƩ e Temple Road, Dangedara, Galle. APPLICANT – APPELLANT Vs. 2 Sarvodaya Economic Development Services (Guarantee) Limited, No. 98, RawatawaƩ e Road, Moratuwa. RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT And now between Soorya Balashakthi Lankapura, No. 13/36, MalwaƩ e Temple Road, Dangedara, Galle. APPLICANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT Vs. Sarvodaya Economic Development Services (Guarantee) Limited, No. 98, RawatawaƩ e Road, Moratuwa. RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT Before: A.H.M.D Nawaz, J Mahinda Samayawardhena, J Arjuna Obeyesekere, J Counsel: Ruvendra Weerasinghe with Kaushalya Hapuarachchi for the Applicant – Appellant – Appellant Malik H. Hannan for the Respondent – Respondent – Respondent Argued on: 27th May 2025 WriƩ en Tendered by the Applicant – Appellant – Appellant on 14th February 2024 Submissions: Tendered by the Respondent – Respondent – Respondent on 28th March 2024 Decided on: 28th January 2026 Obeyesekere, J (1) The Applicant – Appellant – Appellant [the Applicant] filed an applicaƟ on in the Labour Tribunal, Galle [Labour Tribunal] complaining that her employer, the Respondent – Respondent – Respondent [the Respondent] has served her with a vacaƟ on of post noƟ ce dated 12th February 2016 without any reason and unfairly terminated her services. (2) Having heard the evidence presented by both parƟ es, the Labour Tribunal held by its Order dated 27th November 2018 that the Respondent was jusƟ fied in treaƟ ng the Applicant as having vacated her post. Aggrieved, the Applicant filed an appeal with the High Court of the Southern Province holden in Galle [the High Court], which upheld the Order of the Labour Tribunal by its judgment delivered on 4th May 2023. (3) The Applicant thereaŌ er sought and obtained leave to appeal from this Court on 19th July 2023 on the following quesƟ on of law: “Did the learned High Court Judge err by upholding the finding of the Labour Tribunal that the Applicant had vacated her post.” The concept of vacaƟ on of post (4) There are many reasons why an employee will stay away from reporƟ ng to his or her workplace. Common among these reasons is the transfer of an employee from one work place of the employer to another work place of the employer. While the general principle is that even if the employee is aggrieved by such transfer, he or she must first comply and then complain, there can be instances where the transfer is actuated by malice on the part of the employer or give rise to situaƟ ons of construcƟ ve terminaƟ on of the contract of employment. Be that as it may, where the employee does not report to the new work place without a valid explanaƟ on for his or her absence, the employer is enƟ tled to arrive at a determinaƟ on that the employee is not interested in conƟ nuing with his or her employment and has vacated his or her post. Where such a determinaƟ on is challenged in a labour tribunal, the burden of proving the vacaƟ on of employment is with the employer. 3 (5) In Nandasena v Uva Regional Transport Board [(1993) 1 Sri LR 318; at page 324], Mark Fernando, J in his dissenƟ ng opinion referred to the judgment of the AdministraƟ ve Tribunal of the InternaƟ onal Labour OrganisaƟ on in Re Duran (No. 2) cited in C.F. Amerasinghe’s Law of the InternaƟ onal Civil Service [1988, pp. 903-904] where it had been stated as follows: \" If one party to a contract fails or refuses to perform his duties under the contract in circumstances which show that he does not intend ever again to resume them, i.e. show in effect that he is abandoning his post, the other party is entitled to treat the contract as at an end; he is not obliged to wait indefinitely in case the first party might change his mind. This is what abandonment means. It contains both a physical and a mental element. A temporary absence from a place does not mean that the place is abandoned; there must be shown also an intention not to return. So to the physical failure to perform a contractual duty there must be added the intention to abandon future performance. Proof of intention is not always easy, and the object of Rule 980 is to allow the intention to be assumed from the fact of absence without reasonable explanation for fifteen days. The explanation has not got to be one that exonerates the staff member from breach of contract or from other disciplinary measures, but it has to be one which negatives the intention to abandon..........” [emphasis added] (6) That the concept of vacaƟ on of post comprises of two elements has long been recognised by our Courts. In Nelson De Silva v Sri Lanka State Engineering CorporaƟ on [(1996) 2 Sri LR 342; at page 343] F.N.D. Jayasuriya, J stated that: “The concept of vacaƟ on of post involves two aspects; one is the mental element, that is intenƟ on to desert and abandon the employment and the more familiar element of the concept of vacaƟ on of post, which is the failure to report at the work place of the employee. To consƟ tute the first element, it must be established that the Applicant in not reporƟ ng at the work place, was actuated by an intenƟ on to voluntarily vacate his employment.” 4 (7) This posiƟ on was reiterated in Coats Thread Lanka (Pvt) Limited v Samarasundera [(2010) 2 Sri LR 1; at pages 9 and 10] where Chief JusƟ ce Asoka De Silva stated that, “It has been held in several instances by this court, which now can be considered as trite law that for abandonment of the contract to be proved, proof of physical absence as well as the mental element of intent needs to be established…. I am of the opinion that \"absence\" here is a reference to the lack of presence when such presence is deemed necessary in the ordinary course of employment. In other words, where the Respondent is required to be present at the work place at a reasonable hour of the day and he absents himself and such absence conƟ nues it can be safely assumed that the first ingredient had been met. The mental element or what is referred to as ‘animus non revertendi’ is the intenƟ on to abandon the contract permanently.” [emphasis added] (8) While mere physical absence alone is insufficient and cannot be singled out and taken in isolaƟ on to signify the abandonment of the contract of employment, the party seeking to establish a vacaƟ on of post must prove that the physical absence co-existed with the mental intent of animus non revertendi. The two must co-exist for there to be a vacaƟ on of post in law. (9) While proving intenƟ on to abandon is difficult, especially where the absence is temporary, in Building Materials CorporaƟ on v Jathika Sevaka Sangamaya [(1993) 2 Sri LR 316], Perera, J while taking the view that long absence without obtaining leave or authority is evidence of deserƟ on or abandonment of service, held as follows: “Where an employee endeavours to keep away from work or refuses or fails to report to work or duty without an acceptable excuse for a reasonably long period of time such conduct would necessarily be a ground which justifies the employer to consider the employee as having vacated service. In this case it is clear that the document R11 was served on the Applicant-Respondent after he had been given several opportunities to regularise his position and to report for duty at Anuradhapura which he persistently failed to do.” [page 322] 5 “An intenƟ on to remain away permanently must necessarily be inferred from the Employee\'s conduct and I hold that long absence without obtaining leave or authority is evidence of deserƟ on or abandonment of service.” [page 323] (10) This being the legal posiƟ on, I shall now turn to the aƩ endant circumstances of this appeal on which I am required to determine whether the Labour Tribunal and the High Court erred when it held that the Applicant had vacated her employment with the Respondent. AƩ endant circumstances (11) By leƩ er dated 8th October 2004 [A1], the Applicant had been appointed to the post of Enterprise PromoƟ on Officer [Trainee] of the Respondent with effect from 15th October 2004. It is admiƩ ed that the said post was transferable as specifically set out in A1. The Applicant, whose home town is Galle, had iniƟ ally been assigned to the Hambantota Office of the Respondent, and by leƩ er dated 8th June 2005 [A2], the Applicant had been transferred to the Galle Office of the Respondent. The posiƟ on held by the Applicant had subsequently been re-designated as Project Officer in 2006 and the Applicant had been promoted as an ExecuƟ ve [Grade 2] with effect from 1st December 2012. (12) It is admiƩ ed that the core acƟ vity of the Respondent comprised of its micro finance division with the bulk of its employees being involved with the micro finance business of the Respondent. In addiƟ on, the Respondent had two other divisions, namely the management division and the projects division, with the Applicant aƩ ached to the laƩ er division. In 2013, the micro finance business had been transferred to Sarvodaya Development Finance and the employees who had been in that division had either been absorbed into the new company or else, had been offered compensaƟ on under a voluntary reƟ rement scheme. The Respondent states that the division that the Applicant was aƩ ached conƟ nued to funcƟ on and that the services of the Applicant were required for its operaƟ ons. (13) However, with the micro finance business not being part of the Respondent any further, the affairs of the Respondent had been scaled down, and the premises where the office of the Respondent was situated in Galle is said to have been sold to 6 Sarvodaya in 2014. Consequently, by leƩ er dated 27th May 2014 [R2], the Applicant had been informed that she had been assigned to the head office of the Respondent at RawathawaƩ e, Moratuwa and to report for duty at the head office from 2nd June 2014. A similar leƩ er had been sent to the other three employees who were aƩ ached to the projects division of the Respondent. (14) By leƩ er dated 30th May 2014 [R3], the Applicant had informed the Respondent that she is pregnant and that she will find it difficult to report for duty at the head office and had therefore sought the indulgence of the Respondent to conƟ nue to work in Galle. The Respondent had acceded to this request of the Applicant and had informed her by leƩ er dated 18th July 2014 [R4] that she had been assigned on a temporary basis to the Sarvodaya District Office, Galle which was part of the Sarvodaya group, with effect from 21st July 2014 and that the Respondent may require her services at the head office on a future date. (15) The Respondent had granted the Applicant maternity leave in terms of the law, which had been extended with a period of paid leave followed by a further period of leave on no-pay basis unƟ l 30th June 2015. While approving the no-pay leave, the Respondent had informed the Applicant by its leƩ er dated 8th June 2015 [R6] that she must report for duty at the head office of the Respondent at Moratuwa on 2nd July 2015. (16) The Applicant did not report for duty as required by R6, which resulted in the Respondent informing the Applicant by leƩ er dated 5th August 2015 [R7] that her work place is the head office of the Respondent at Moratuwa and that she must report for duty on a daily basis. The Applicant not having complied with the above direcƟ ve, by its leƩ er dated 13th August 2015 [R8] the Respondent had informed the Applicant as follows: “2015$07$28 jeks osk mej;s jHmD;s wxYfha udisl m%.;s iudf,dapk reiajsfusos ksfhdaPH idudkHdOls drsjrhd jsiks a jdpslj iy 2015$08$05 jk osfkka my; w;aika lrk wh jsiska Tn fj; ,sLs;j ^,shdmosxps ;emEf,ka& wxl 98\" rdj;dj;a; mdr fudrgqj msysgs iSvsia ^.erkags& ,susgvS iud.fus m%Odk ldrahd,h fj; ffokslj fiajh i|yd jdra;d lrk f,i oekqj;a lr we;\' kuq;a wo osk f;la$Wla; Wmfoia mrsos fiajdjka i|yd jdra;d lr ke;\' tfiua fusiusnkaOj wm fj; lsisoq oekqus oSula lr fyda jsOsu;a mrsos ksjdvq 7 ,nd.eksula o isoqlr fkdue;\' ta ksid jydu fiajh i|yd jdra;d lrk f,i fusu.sla Tn fj; kej; oekqj;a lrusq\'” (17) It appears that the Applicant had disregarded R8 and failed to report for duty, since the Respondent had sent the following leƩ er dated 9th September 2015 [R9]: “2015 wf.daia;+ ui 03 jk osk isg wo osk f;la Tn fiajhg jdra;d lr we;af;a osk 01 ls\' fuh b;du wi;+gqodhl ;;a;ajhls\' 2015 jraIh fjkqfjka ilia lrk ,o ixjraOk ldrah ie,eiaug wkqj wdh;khg Tnf.ka bgqjsh hq;+ fiajdj ,ndosug kus fiajh i|yd l%hs dldrjs jdra;d l, hq;+h\' tfia fkdlsrsfuka wdh;kfha ls%hdldrs;ajh oqraj, jsug th n,mdkqwe;\' ta ksid l%udkql+,j fiajhg meufsKk f,i wjika jrg Tn fj; wjOdrKh lrjuq\' 2015 jraIhg wod, Tng ysus ishΩ ksjdvq osk .Kkg jvd oekgu;a Tn fiajhg jdra;d fldg fkdue;sosk .Kka jevsh\' ta ksid oSukd f.jsfusoSfiajhg fkdmeuKs sosk i|yd mvs rys; oskhka f,i i,ld 2015 iema;eusnra udifha igs lghq;= lsrsug iosqjk nj okajuq\' tfiau os.ska os.gu fija h i|yd meusfKk f,i wm jsiska oekqj;a l<;a\" ;ud fj; mejrs we;sfiajd j.lsusbgqfkdlr\" l<ukdlrKh fj; lsiosqoekqusoSula fkdlr\" fiajhg jdra;d fkdlr isgsfuka Tn lrkafka wdh;ksl ks;srs;s j,g mgyeksj l%shd lsrsuls\' ta wkqj Tn fiajfhka my lrkjd yefrkakg wdh;khg fjk;a jsl,amhla fkdue;s nj fus u.ska oekqus fouq\' flfia kuq;a by; lreKqflfra Unf.a oevswjOdkh fhduqlr fuu wvqmdvqlusksjeros lr.ksuska jydu ksishdldrj fiajhg jdra;d lrk f,i oekqj;a lru\'q” (18) In spite of R9, the Applicant had conƟ nued to disregard the request of the Respondent to report for duty which resulted in the Respondent sending a final noƟ ce by leƩ er dated 22nd September 2015 [R12] informing the Applicant as follows: “2015\'09\'09 osfkka Tn fj; my; w;aika lrk ,o wh jsiska tjk ,o ,smsh yd nefoa\' fuu ,smshg lsisoqms<s;=rla fyda m%;spdrhla Tn jsiks a olajd ke;\' kishs dldrj fiajhg jdra;d l<hq;+ nj usg fmr wjia:d lsysmhloSTnj oekjq;a lr ;snkq ;a 2015\'08\'03 osk isg wo jk;+re;a Tn wkjirfhka yd lsisoq oekqusosulska f;drj iSvsia ^.erkags& ,susgvS ys fiajhg jdra;d fldg fkdue;\' Tn 98\" rdj;dj;a; mdr fudrgqj ,smskfha msysgs iSvsia ^.erkags& ,susgvS ys m%Odk ldrahd,h fj; ksishdldrj fiajh i|yd jdra;d fkdl,fyd;a Tnf.a fiajh wjika lsrSug isoqjk nj wjidk jYfhka fuhska wjjdo lru\'q” 8 (19) While the Applicant did not respond to R12, the Respondent admits that the Applicant visited the Head Office on 5th January 2016 at 11.09 in the morning but failed to report for duty either on that date or any day thereaŌ er. This failure resulted in the following leƩ er dated 18th January 2016 [R10] being sent to the Applicant: “iSvsia ^.erkags& ,susgvS yS jsOdhl ^2& ;k;+r ork Tn fiajh i|yd ksishdldrj jdra;d fkdlrk ksid ta nj oekqj;a lr jydu fiajh i|yd jdra;d lrk f,i ,sLs;j wjia:d lys mshloS^,hs dmosxps;emEf,ka 2015.08.05, 2015.08.13, 2015.09.09 2015.09.22& oekqus os we;\' kuq;a Tn fiajh i|yd jdra;d lr ke;\' tnejska 2016.01.29 oskg fmr wxl 98\" rdj;dj;a; mdr fudrgqj ,smskfha we;s iSvsia ^.erkags& ,susgvS ys m%Odk ldrahd,h fj; kishs dldrj fiajh i|yd jdra;d lrk f,i Un fj; oekqusfou\'qTn fj; mejfrk fiajd j.lSus my; w;aika lrk wh jsiska fiajhg jdra;d lsrsfuka wk;+rej ,sLs;j ,ndfokq we;\'” (20) The Applicant thereaŌ er visited the head office of the Respondent on 29th January 2016. The Applicant claimed that she reported for duty on that date but that no work was assigned. She stated further that she met the Managing Director of the Respondent in order to discuss “her plight”, presented him with three opƟ ons and had thereaŌ er leŌ the workplace without signing off. (21) It is admiƩ ed that the Applicant did not report for duty on the next working date of 1 st February 2016 or thereaŌ er. It is in this background that the Respondent informed the Applicant by leƩ er dated 12th February 2016 [A13] that she has vacated her employment with effect from 1st February 2016. The posiƟ on of the Applicant (22) The Applicant, whilst admiƫ ng that she reported for duty only on 8-10 days during the period 2nd July 2015 – 1st February 2016, claimed for the first Ɵme before the Labour Tribunal that her salary was not sufficient to meet her transport costs from Galle to Moratuwa on a daily basis and that the transfer was actuated by malice in order to force the Applicant to resign from her employment without the payment of any compensaƟ on. However, it is clear that the Respondent did not have an office in Galle and hence, the services of the Applicant had to be performed from its head office where the work of the projects division was being carried out. Thus, the claim 9 of the Applicant that her transfer was actuated by malice is not supported by the evidence. (23) This is further borne out by two other factors. The first is the Respondent paid compensaƟ on to a sizeable number of employees who opted to move on aŌ er the sale of the micro finance business and therefore the payment of compensaƟ on to the four employees of the projects division could not have been an issue for the Respondent. The second factor is that the Respondent acceded to the request of the Applicant to keep her in Galle unƟ l she delivers her baby and thereaŌ er granted her paid maternity leave as well as further no-pay leave to look aŌ er the baby. Such conduct cannot be expected if the moƟ ve behind the transfer was malicious. (24) The Applicant has conceded further that even though she visited the Head Office on about 8-10 occasions aŌ er her maternity leave was over and during the period of 2nd July 2015 – 1st February 2016, the purpose of such visits was to discuss whether the Respondent was willing to pay her compensaƟ on similar to what it did with employees in the micro finance business or offer her a higher salary. Thus, the intenƟ on of the Applicant to refrain from reporƟ ng for duty unless her condiƟ ons were met is borne out by her own evidence. (25) The Applicant states that she reported for duty at the Head Office on 29th January 2016 but was not assigned any work nor allocated a table and chair. She states that she met the Managing Director of the Respondent who offered her 9 months’ salary as compensaƟ on but that she declined the offer, and instead presented three opƟ ons to the Managing Director, that being to transfer her to Galle, offer her enhanced compensaƟ on, or if she was to report to the head office to pay a monthly salary of Rs. 45,000, whereas her salary at that Ɵme was Rs. 16,800. The Applicant took up the posiƟ on that she had no intenƟ on to give up her employment and that she did not report for duty aŌ er 29th January 2016 since she expected the Managing Director to inform her the posiƟ on of the Respondent on the three opƟ ons that she had placed on the table. (26) This being the factual circumstances of this case, I shall now consider the Order of the Labour Tribunal and the judgment of the High Court. 10 Impugned Order and Judgment (27) The Labour Tribunal has at the outset considered the claim of the Applicant that her transfer was actuated by malice and had rejected such claim on the basis that the Applicant held a transferable post, the reason for her transfer was the divesƟ ture of the finance business and that her services were required by the Respondent at the head office. The Tribunal has held further that the Respondent acceded to the request of the Applicant and deferred the transfer that was iniƟ ally effected in 2014 since the Applicant was expecƟ ng a baby and thereaŌ er granted her paid and unpaid maternity leave, thus demonstraƟ ng that the Respondent had acted in good faith. (28) The Labour Tribunal has thereaŌ er held that even though the Applicant visited the head office, the Applicant did not have an intenƟ on of reporƟ ng for duty or to comply with the transfer order or the many leƩ ers sent to her, when it stated as follows – “fus iusnkaOj b,a,qusldrsh wod< lreKq u. yrsuska idlaIs oS we;s w;r b,a,qusldrshf.au iuia: idlaIsh wkqj weh fiajh lsrSfus woyiska fudrgqj ldrahd,hg f.dia fkdue;s nj wOslrKh ksrslaIKh lrus”. The basis for this conclusion founded upon the evidence before the Tribunal is threefold. (29) The first is that even out of the days that the Applicant reported at the head office, she did not report at 8.30 in the morning – “tkus fiajhg jdra;d lsrsug wjYH kus jdra;d l< hq;af;a kshus;j fiajhg jdra;d l<hq;= fjs,djg jk ku;q a weh jdra;d lr we;fa ;a 11\'00 g jk w;r tkhskau weh f.dia we;af;a fija h lsrSug fkdjk njo ksrSlaIKh fjs\'” (30) The second is that she visited the head office on 29th January 2016 not with an intenƟ on of reporƟ ng for duty but to present three opƟ ons to the Respondent, or in other words, to propose to the Respondent the condiƟ ons on which she was willing to report for duty – “tkus b;du;a meyeos,s f,i b,a,qusldrshf.au by; ud Wmqgd olajd we;s idlaIs wkqj weh jsiska wdh;k m%Odkshdg oekqus os we;af;a b,a,Sus 3 ls\' tys .d,af,a relshdj\" jkaoshla fyda jegqma jevslr m%Odk ldrahd,fha relshdj ,ndfok f,ihs\' tkus b,a,qusldrshf.a wjYH;djh jS we;fa ;a flfia fyda .d,af,a wΩ;ska wdrusN lrk ,o wdh;kfha relshdj ,nd.eksu fyda fija h wjika lr jkaosuqo,a ,nd.ekSu fyda fudrgqfjsfiajhg jdra;d lrkafka kusjegqma jevslrk f,ig lr we;sb,a,Suhs\' tkhskau weh i:a dk udrej mrsosfudrgqj wdh;khg fiajh i|yd jdra;d lsrsula lr fkdue;s nj;a\" wod< b,a,Su iusnkaOj idlpsPd lrsfSuswjYH;djh u; muKla jdra;d lr we;snjg;a ud ksrslaIKh lru\'s” 11 (31) The third was that the Applicant failed to report for duty in response to A13 dated 12th February 2016 – “tfiau b,a,qusldrshg wjidk jYfhka tjd we;s R.12 f,aLkhg wkqjo weh jsOsu;aj fiajhg jdra;d fkdl< njo weh idlaIs fouska i|yka lr ;sfns\'” (32) The Labour Tribunal has accordingly concluded as follows: “by; ishΩu lreKqkej; mqk mqkd i|yka lruska b,a,quls drsh ia:dk udrejg wjk; fkdjs isgsu fiajh yer hdula njg ksrslaIKh lrk w;r\" tysos b,a,qusldrshf.au idlaIs wkqj wehg fiajh yerhdfusudkils wjYH;djhlao ;snswe;snj ikd: jk w;r fiajh wjika lsrsu ilH;d jevsnr u; ikd: js fkdue;s njg ;srKh lruska b,a,qusm;%h ksIam%Nd lrus\"” (33) DissaƟ sfied with the said Order, the Applicant preferred an appeal to the High Court. It must be noted that an appeal to the High Court is circumscribed by the provisions of SecƟ on 31D(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act which provides that an appeal from an order of a labour tribunal shall be on a quesƟ on of law. While a misdirecƟ on on the facts can amount to a quesƟ on of law, due deference must be shown to the conclusions reached by the labour tribunal which are supported by evidence. (34) I have examined the judgment of the High Court and observe that the High Court has carefully considered the five grounds urged on behalf of the Applicant. Whilst rejecƟ ng the argument that the Labour Tribunal has not considered the evidence, the High Court has arrived at two important conclusions. The first is that even if the Applicant was dissaƟ sfied with the transfer, she ought to have complied first and then complained. The High Court has correctly concluded that the Applicant did neither and that the Applicant did not even respond to the several leƩ ers sent to her requesƟ ng that she report for duty. The second conclusion reached by the High Court is with regard to what transpired on 29th January 2016, with the High Court agreeing with the Labour Tribunal that the Applicant visited the head office on that day only to present her three opƟ ons and not with an intenƟ on to report for duty or in compliance with the transfer order, thus demonstraƟ ng that the Applicant did not have the intenƟ on to resume her employment. 12 VacaƟ on of post by the Applicant (35) The issue that needs to be determined by me is whether the High Court erred by upholding the finding of the Labour Tribunal that the Applicant had vacated her post. It is admiƩ ed that even though the Applicant was required to report for duty on 2nd July 2015 aŌ er her no-pay maternity leave came to an end in June 2015, she failed to report to the head office except may be on 8 – 10 days. It is clear that the Applicant was served with A13 on 12th February 2016 not only due to her prolonged absence without taking leave and without any explanaƟ on, but also due to her failure to report for duty either on 29th January 2016 or thereaŌ er. Thus, of the two elements required to prove that an employee has vacated his or her post, the first element of physical absence from the work place has been established. (36) This brings me to the criƟ cal quesƟ on of whether the Respondent has established the mental element or in other words, that the Applicant had the intenƟ on to vacate her employment when she failed to report for duty on 2nd July 2015 or thereaŌ er. (37) Here is an employee (a) who keeps away from her work place for seven long months except a few days in-between where she steps in to the office not with an intenƟ on of reporƟ ng for duty or to do any work or with an intenƟ on to conƟ nue her contract of employment, and (b) who does not make any aƩ empt to inform the Respondent of any difficulty that prevents her from reporƟ ng for work on a conƟ nuous basis. In other words, she couldn’t care less for the interests of her employer or her employment. (38) The absence of the Applicant from employment was not temporary but for a prolonged period, and that too, without leave and without any inƟ maƟ on to the Respondent. During this seven month period, the Respondent had sent the Applicant several leƩ ers asking her to report for duty but she chose to ignore each of the said leƩ ers as if she was no longer in the employment of the Respondent and therefore not bound to respond. All these taken together are to my mind, a clear indicaƟ on that the Applicant had no intenƟ on to return to employment on the terms and condiƟ ons that were applicable to her at the Ɵme she was asked to report to the head office in 2014. This intenƟ on of the Applicant is confirmed by the fact that when 13 she reported to the head office for the last Ɵme on 29th January 2016, it was for the purpose of presenƟ ng the Respondent with three opƟ ons and not with the intenƟ on of reporƟ ng for work on the aforemenƟ oned terms and condiƟ ons. (39) In Contract of Employment by S. R. De Silva [page 412; paragraph 329], the author points out that long absence without leave or authority is evidence of deserƟ on. He thereaŌ er cites the following passage from Jeewanal Ltd v Their Workmen [1961 (1) L.L.J 517 (SC)] where it was held that, “if an employee conƟ nues to be absent from duty without obtaining leave and in an unauthorised manner for such a long period of Ɵme … an inference may reasonably be drawn from such absence that by his absence he has abandoned service…” (40) The author has thereaŌ er cited the following passage from Employees\' Misconduct by Alfred Avins [Law Book Company, Allahabad, 1968] which perhaps summarises what happened to the Applicant in this case: \"The basis of this rule [of prolonged absence] is that the longer the employee stays away, the more opportuniƟ es he has to think about coming back, and to actually return if he so chooses. The fact that he constantly rejects these opportuniƟ es at the moment of choice gives rise to a logical probability that during one of these points where the employee had to choose in his own mind between returning, staying away temporarily, or staying away permanently, he chooses not only to reject returning in favour of a temporary absence but rather in favour of a permanent absence. Thus the more opportuniƟ es for choice which presented themselves by the lapse of Ɵme, the greater is the mathemaƟ cal probability that at one of these choice-points the employee chose a permanent absence over a temporary one. One such choice is enough to complete the offence of deserƟ on.\" (41) I am of the view that the conƟ nued absence of the Applicant from duty without obtaining leave, without any inƟ maƟ on and in an unauthorised manner for a prolonged period of Ɵme, and her conduct on 29th January 2016 to which the Labour Tribunal has adverted to, clearly establishes that the Applicant had no intenƟ on to resume her employment at the head office of the Respondent and that the Applicant has abandoned her contract of employment. I am therefore in agreement with the 14 aforemenƟ oned conclusions reached by the Labour Tribunal which have been affirmed by the High Court. Conclusion (42) In the above circumstances, the quesƟ on of law is answered in the negaƟ ve. The judgment of the High Court is affirmed and this appeal is dismissed, without costs. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT A.H.M.D. Nawaz, J I agree JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT Mahinda Samayawardhena, J I agree. JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT 15 📄 Download
27 Jan 2026 SC/HC CALA/437/2024
Bambarawana Hettigamage Hemachandra 62A, Dharmarama Road, Rathmalana. Defendant-Petitioner-Petitioner -Vs- Hendahewa Jagath Kithsri, Uduwila, Batapola. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Bambarawana Hettigamage Hemachandra 62A, Dharmarama Road, Rathmalana. Defendant-Petitioner-Petitioner -Vs- Hendahewa Jagath Kithsri, Uduwila, Batapola. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Janak De Silva 📄 Download
22 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/5/2015
Dr. (Mrs.) Mangala Gunatilake No. 864/5, Kotte Road, Etul Kotte. PETITIONER -Vs- 1. The University Grants Commission No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 2(a) Prof S. S. M. Kshanika Hirimburegama Chairperson, The University Grants Commission, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 3. The University of Colombo No. 94, Cumaratunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03. 4(a) Dr. W. Kumara Hirimburegama The Vice Chancellor, University of Colombo, No. 94, Cumaratunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03. 5. Mr T. L. R. Silva Acting Registrar, University of Colombo, No. 94, Cumaratunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03. 6. Dr. Tudor Weerasinghe The Rector, Sri Palee Campus, Wewala, Horana. 7. Prof. Indralal de Silva Dean, Faculty of Arts, University of Colombo, No. 94, Cumaratunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03. 8. Prof. Marie ES Perera, Dean, Faculty of Education, University of Colombo, No. 94, Cumaratunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03. 9. Mr. N. Selvakkumaran, Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Colombo, No. 94, Cumaratunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03. AND OTHERS Dr. (Mrs.) Mangala Gunatilake No. 864/5, Kotte Road, Etul Kotte. PETITIONER -Vs- 1. The University Grants Commission No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 2(a) Prof S. S. M. Kshanika Hirimburegama Chairperson, The University Grants Commission, No. 20, Ward Place, Colombo 7. 3. The University of Colombo No. 94, Cumaratunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03. 4(a) Dr. W. Kumara Hirimburegama The Vice Chancellor, University of Colombo, No. 94, Cumaratunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03. 5. Mr T. L. R. Silva Acting Registrar, University of Colombo, No. 94, Cumaratunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03. 6. Dr. Tudor Weerasinghe The Rector, Sri Palee Campus, Wewala, Horana. 7. Prof. Indralal de Silva Dean, Faculty of Arts, University of Colombo, No. 94, Cumaratunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03. 8. Prof. Marie ES Perera, Dean, Faculty of Education, University of Colombo, No. 94, Cumaratunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03. 9. Mr. N. Selvakkumaran, Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Colombo, No. 94, Cumaratunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03. AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon. Justice S. Thurairaja, PC In the matter of an Appeal under and in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 📄 Download
22 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/138/2019
1. The Director General, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, No.36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. D. B. Sugath Gnanasiri Kohelanwala, Madawela, Ulpatha, Matale. ACCUSED-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT 1. The Director General, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, No.36, Malalasekara Mawatha, Colombo 07. COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs. 1. D. B. Sugath Gnanasiri Kohelanwala, Madawela, Ulpatha, Matale. ACCUSED-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice S. Thurairaja, PC In the matter of an application in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 📄 Download
22 Jan 2026 SC/FR/85/2011
1. O.C. Subasinghe, Hatton Police Station, Hatton. 2. E.M.C.P. Ratnayake, Mirihana Police Station, Mirihana. 3. M.M.R.C. Munasinghe, Galnawa Police Station, Galnawa. 4. D.M.C.K. Dhanaka, Damana Police Station, Damana. 5. C. Wickramaratne, Lunugamwehera Police Station, Lunugamwehera. 6. R.A.J. Kumara, Police Anti Vice Squad. Walana, Panadura. 7. N.S. Ranasinghe, Matugama Police Station, Matugama. 8. W.K.G. Chamika, Gampaha Police Station, Gampaha. 9. R.S.K.P. Dilantha, Matara Police Station, Matara. 10. H.A.N.S. Seneviratne, Fort Police Station, Fort. 11. K.R. Pushpakumara, Ampara Police Station, Ampara. 12. S.J. Chaminda, Police Fraud Bureau, Wellawatta. 13. B.H.C.R. Sanjeewa, Hikkaduwa Police Station, Hikkaduwa. 14. P.P. Gunarathne, Mannar Police Station, Mannar. 15. N.M.S. de Silva, Maradana Police Station, Maradana. 16. K.P.C.L. Kariyawasam, Special Investigations Unit, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 17. A.M.N.P. Adhikaram, Deraniyagala Pollice Station, Deraniyagala. 18. L.P.W. Siriwardena, Minister Security Division, Colombo 02. 19. A.V.S.C. Abeygunasekara, Beliaththa Police Station, Beliaththa. 20. M.M.P.L.P.W.B. Manatunga, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 21. P.P.J. Ramanayake, Crimes Division (Western Province North) Peliyagoda. 22. H.T.S. Kumara, Eheliyagoda Police Station, Eheliyagoda. 23. B.V.C.P. Benaragama, Panadura Police Station, Panadura. 24. D.S. Mawadawilaga, Kegalle Police Station, Kegalle. 25. M.R. Dayananda, Criminal Investigation Department, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 26. A.D.S. Attanayake, Judicial Security Division, Colombo 02. 27. S.B. Alahakoon, Matara Police Station, Matara. 28. S.W.A.P.R. Samarawickrema, Kegalle Police Station, Kegalle. 29. W.D.S. Ariyaratne, Police Narcotics Bureau, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 30. H.K.P. Matharaarachchi, Mini ster Security Division, Colombo 02. 31. M. Anura, Ahangama Police Station, Ahangama. 32. P.R.M. Wasanthakumara, Wariyapola Police Station, Wariyapola. 33. U.G.S.B. Ranaweera, Matale Police Station, Kalpitiya. 34. S.A.A. Dewapriya, Kalpitiya Police Station, Kalpitiya. 35. H.B.T.K. Priyadarshana, Borella Police Station, Borella. 36. R.M.R.J. Rajapakse, Kankasanthurai Police Station, Kankasanthurai. 37. K.P.T. De Silva, Galle Police Station, Galle. 38. H.M.R.B. Hearath, Aralaganwila Police Station, Aralaganwila. 39. H.M.A.G.D. Bandara, Pettah Police Station, Pettah. 40. A.M.K. Wijeybandara, Criminal Investigation Department, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. PETITIONERS vs 1. Mahinda Balasooriya, The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 1A. N.K. Illangakoon, The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 1B. Pujith Jayasundara, The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. AND OTHERS 1. O.C. Subasinghe, Hatton Police Station, Hatton. 2. E.M.C.P. Ratnayake, Mirihana Police Station, Mirihana. 3. M.M.R.C. Munasinghe, Galnawa Police Station, Galnawa. 4. D.M.C.K. Dhanaka, Damana Police Station, Damana. 5. C. Wickramaratne, Lunugamwehera Police Station, Lunugamwehera. 6. R.A.J. Kumara, Police Anti Vice Squad. Walana, Panadura. 7. N.S. Ranasinghe, Matugama Police Station, Matugama. 8. W.K.G. Chamika, Gampaha Police Station, Gampaha. 9. R.S.K.P. Dilantha, Matara Police Station, Matara. 10. H.A.N.S. Seneviratne, Fort Police Station, Fort. 11. K.R. Pushpakumara, Ampara Police Station, Ampara. 12. S.J. Chaminda, Police Fraud Bureau, Wellawatta. 13. B.H.C.R. Sanjeewa, Hikkaduwa Police Station, Hikkaduwa. 14. P.P. Gunarathne, Mannar Police Station, Mannar. 15. N.M.S. de Silva, Maradana Police Station, Maradana. 16. K.P.C.L. Kariyawasam, Special Investigations Unit, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 17. A.M.N.P. Adhikaram, Deraniyagala Pollice Station, Deraniyagala. 18. L.P.W. Siriwardena, Minister Security Division, Colombo 02. 19. A.V.S.C. Abeygunasekara, Beliaththa Police Station, Beliaththa. 20. M.M.P.L.P.W.B. Manatunga, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 21. P.P.J. Ramanayake, Crimes Division (Western Province North) Peliyagoda. 22. H.T.S. Kumara, Eheliyagoda Police Station, Eheliyagoda. 23. B.V.C.P. Benaragama, Panadura Police Station, Panadura. 24. D.S. Mawadawilaga, Kegalle Police Station, Kegalle. 25. M.R. Dayananda, Criminal Investigation Department, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 26. A.D.S. Attanayake, Judicial Security Division, Colombo 02. 27. S.B. Alahakoon, Matara Police Station, Matara. 28. S.W.A.P.R. Samarawickrema, Kegalle Police Station, Kegalle. 29. W.D.S. Ariyaratne, Police Narcotics Bureau, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 30. H.K.P. Matharaarachchi, Mini ster Security Division, Colombo 02. 31. M. Anura, Ahangama Police Station, Ahangama. 32. P.R.M. Wasanthakumara, Wariyapola Police Station, Wariyapola. 33. U.G.S.B. Ranaweera, Matale Police Station, Kalpitiya. 34. S.A.A. Dewapriya, Kalpitiya Police Station, Kalpitiya. 35. H.B.T.K. Priyadarshana, Borella Police Station, Borella. 36. R.M.R.J. Rajapakse, Kankasanthurai Police Station, Kankasanthurai. 37. K.P.T. De Silva, Galle Police Station, Galle. 38. H.M.R.B. Hearath, Aralaganwila Police Station, Aralaganwila. 39. H.M.A.G.D. Bandara, Pettah Police Station, Pettah. 40. A.M.K. Wijeybandara, Criminal Investigation Department, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. PETITIONERS vs 1. Mahinda Balasooriya, The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 1A. N.K. Illangakoon, The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 1B. Pujith Jayasundara, The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon.Justice Sampath K. B. Wijeratne 📄 Download
20 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/51/2022
1. Ranasinghe Mudiyanselage Bandara Menike alias Bandu Menike, (deceased) No. 208 A, Kurunduwatta Road, Kadugannawa. 1st Defendant-Appellant-Appellant 1A. R.M. Chandrawathie, No. 203/A, Kurunduwatta Road, Kotabogoda, Kadugannawa. 1B. V.G. Amitha Kumarihamy, No. 208 B, Kuruduwatta Road, Kotabogoda, Kadugannawa. 1C. V.J. Sheelawathie Podimenike, “Adhikari Sewana”, Alpitiya, Dewanagala. 1D. V.J. Seetha Menike, No. 227, Pussepitiya Walawwa, Menikdiwela. 1E. Ranasinghe Mudiyanselage Punchi Mahaththayo, No. 208/3, Kurunduwatta Road, Kotabogoda, Kadugannawa. 1F. Saumya Kumari Ranasinghe, Muthupanawatta, Urapola, Kadugannawa. 1G. Laxman Bandara Ranasinghe, Muthupanawatta, Urapola, Kadugannawa. 1H. Ranasinghe Mudiyanselage Dinesh Prasanna Herath, Kuruduwatta Road, Kotabogoda, Kadugannawa. 1I. Ranasinghe Mudiyanselage Chanaka Pradeep Ranasinghe, Kuruduwatta Road, Kotabogoda, Kadugannawa. 1J. Ranasinghe Mudiyanselage Dharshika Nishadi Herath, Kuruduwatta Road, Kotabogoda, Kadugannawa. Substituted 1A to 1J Defendant-Appellant-Appellants 2. Ranasinghe Mudiyanselage Anura Ranasinghe Bandara, No. 208/A, Kurunduwatta Road, Kadugannawa. 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Senevirathna Bandaralage Karunathilleka Bandara, No. 208/C, Karase Gedara Watta, Kurunduwatta Road, Kadugannawa. 2. Senevirathna Bandaralage Chandrathilleke Bandara, No. 208/C, Karase Gedara Watta, Kurunduwatta Road, Kadugannawa. 3. Senevirathna Bandaralage Senevirathna Dissanayake, No. 208/C, Karase Gedara Watta, Kurunduwatta Road, Kadugannawa. 4. Senevirathna Bandaralage Senevirathna Bandara, No. 208/C/1, Kurunduwatta Road, Kadugannawa. 5. Senevirathna Bandaralage Biso Menike Epitahagedara, Wewathenna, Gampola. 6. Senevirathna Bandaralage Dayawathie Menike, No. 39, Haliyadda, Danture. 7. Ekanayake Mudiyanselage Nawarathna Bandara, No. 41, Kurunduwatta Road, Kadugannawa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondents 1. Ranasinghe Mudiyanselage Bandara Menike alias Bandu Menike, (deceased) No. 208 A, Kurunduwatta Road, Kadugannawa. 1st Defendant-Appellant-Appellant 1A. R.M. Chandrawathie, No. 203/A, Kurunduwatta Road, Kotabogoda, Kadugannawa. 1B. V.G. Amitha Kumarihamy, No. 208 B, Kuruduwatta Road, Kotabogoda, Kadugannawa. 1C. V.J. Sheelawathie Podimenike, “Adhikari Sewana”, Alpitiya, Dewanagala. 1D. V.J. Seetha Menike, No. 227, Pussepitiya Walawwa, Menikdiwela. 1E. Ranasinghe Mudiyanselage Punchi Mahaththayo, No. 208/3, Kurunduwatta Road, Kotabogoda, Kadugannawa. 1F. Saumya Kumari Ranasinghe, Muthupanawatta, Urapola, Kadugannawa. 1G. Laxman Bandara Ranasinghe, Muthupanawatta, Urapola, Kadugannawa. 1H. Ranasinghe Mudiyanselage Dinesh Prasanna Herath, Kuruduwatta Road, Kotabogoda, Kadugannawa. 1I. Ranasinghe Mudiyanselage Chanaka Pradeep Ranasinghe, Kuruduwatta Road, Kotabogoda, Kadugannawa. 1J. Ranasinghe Mudiyanselage Dharshika Nishadi Herath, Kuruduwatta Road, Kotabogoda, Kadugannawa. Substituted 1A to 1J Defendant-Appellant-Appellants 2. Ranasinghe Mudiyanselage Anura Ranasinghe Bandara, No. 208/A, Kurunduwatta Road, Kadugannawa. 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Senevirathna Bandaralage Karunathilleka Bandara, No. 208/C, Karase Gedara Watta, Kurunduwatta Road, Kadugannawa. 2. Senevirathna Bandaralage Chandrathilleke Bandara, No. 208/C, Karase Gedara Watta, Kurunduwatta Road, Kadugannawa. 3. Senevirathna Bandaralage Senevirathna Dissanayake, No. 208/C, Karase Gedara Watta, Kurunduwatta Road, Kadugannawa. 4. Senevirathna Bandaralage Senevirathna Bandara, No. 208/C/1, Kurunduwatta Road, Kadugannawa. 5. Senevirathna Bandaralage Biso Menike Epitahagedara, Wewathenna, Gampola. 6. Senevirathna Bandaralage Dayawathie Menike, No. 39, Haliyadda, Danture. 7. Ekanayake Mudiyanselage Nawarathna Bandara, No. 41, Kurunduwatta Road, Kadugannawa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
16 Jan 2026 SC/FR/415/2015
1. I. M. Weerasena Premasinghe, C/O Mr. Balagolla, Pahala Kotuwella, Pannala. 2. M. Indika Prabhath Kumara, Palukadawala yaya, Kithulwewahara, Wariyapola. 3. H.M. Athula Weerasingha, Niyarawalpitiya, Hengamuwa, Kobeigane. 4. W.M. Roshan Wanninayaka, No. 670/5, Budumuththawa, Nikaweratiya. 5. P.H. Aruna Lal Ekanayaka, No. 10, Abahena, Heelogama, Nikaweratiya. 6. R. Sisira Senarathna, Nikaweratiya Road, Adigama. 7. M.D. Sarath Weerasingha, No. 14, Abahena, Heelogama, Nikaweratiya. 8. R.M. Samantha Rajapaksha, No. 247, Mahagalkadawala, Galgamuwa. 9. G.P. Sudath Kularathna, No. 52/1, Court Road, Weehenagama, Maho. 10. K.D. Chaminda Kumara Wikramasiri, No. 95, Pahalgama, Kakkapalliya. and others PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Senior Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Polonnaruwa Division, Polonnaruwa. 2. Senior Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Monaragala Division, Monaragala. 3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Nikaweratiya Division, Nikaweratiya. 4. Senior Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Kandy Division, Kandy. 5. Director, President’s Security Division, Union Place, Colombo 02. 6. Director, Ministers’ Security Division, Union Place, Colombo 02. 7. Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Personnel Range), Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 8. Director (Personnel), Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 9. Director (Personal), Special Task Force, Gonahena, Kadawatha. 10. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. and Others. 1. I. M. Weerasena Premasinghe, C/O Mr. Balagolla, Pahala Kotuwella, Pannala. 2. M. Indika Prabhath Kumara, Palukadawala yaya, Kithulwewahara, Wariyapola. 3. H.M. Athula Weerasingha, Niyarawalpitiya, Hengamuwa, Kobeigane. 4. W.M. Roshan Wanninayaka, No. 670/5, Budumuththawa, Nikaweratiya. 5. P.H. Aruna Lal Ekanayaka, No. 10, Abahena, Heelogama, Nikaweratiya. 6. R. Sisira Senarathna, Nikaweratiya Road, Adigama. 7. M.D. Sarath Weerasingha, No. 14, Abahena, Heelogama, Nikaweratiya. 8. R.M. Samantha Rajapaksha, No. 247, Mahagalkadawala, Galgamuwa. 9. G.P. Sudath Kularathna, No. 52/1, Court Road, Weehenagama, Maho. 10. K.D. Chaminda Kumara Wikramasiri, No. 95, Pahalgama, Kakkapalliya. and others PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Senior Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Polonnaruwa Division, Polonnaruwa. 2. Senior Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Monaragala Division, Monaragala. 3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Nikaweratiya Division, Nikaweratiya. 4. Senior Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Kandy Division, Kandy. 5. Director, President’s Security Division, Union Place, Colombo 02. 6. Director, Ministers’ Security Division, Union Place, Colombo 02. 7. Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Personnel Range), Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 8. Director (Personnel), Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. 9. Director (Personal), Special Task Force, Gonahena, Kadawatha. 10. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Colombo 01. and Others.
⚖ Hon. Chief Justice P. Padman Surasena 📄 Download
16 Jan 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/14/2015
Surendran Periyanagam, No.147-2/2, Muhandiram Road, Colombo 03. 3rd Defendant-Appellant Vs. Hatton National Bank Limited having its registered office presently at No. 479, T.B. Jaya Mawatha Colombo 10 and formerly at No. 481, T.B Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10 and having a branch office at No. 71, Havelock Road, Colombo 05. Plaintiff-Respondent 1. TMI Embroidery Solutions (Private) Limited. No. 276/1, Kadawatha Road, Dehiwala. 2. Madurangi Kosali De Silva Gee, No.19/11, Alothia Road, Mirihana, Nugegoda. 1st and 2nd Defendants-Respondents Surendran Periyanagam, No.147-2/2, Muhandiram Road, Colombo 03. 3rd Defendant-Appellant Vs. Hatton National Bank Limited having its registered office presently at No. 479, T.B. Jaya Mawatha Colombo 10 and formerly at No. 481, T.B Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10 and having a branch office at No. 71, Havelock Road, Colombo 05. Plaintiff-Respondent 1. TMI Embroidery Solutions (Private) Limited. No. 276/1, Kadawatha Road, Dehiwala. 2. Madurangi Kosali De Silva Gee, No.19/11, Alothia Road, Mirihana, Nugegoda. 1st and 2nd Defendants-Respondents
⚖ Hon.Justice Menaka Wijesundera 📄 Download
16 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/22/2018
1. Sujatha Kuruppu, 19A, Kirindivita, Gampaha. 2. Gamini Wanshanatha Kuruppu, Kirindivita, Gampaha. 3. Seetha Perera, 19D, Kirindivita, Gampaha. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT - APPELLANTS Vs. Don Sunil Shantha Kuruppu, No. 19B, Kirindivita, Gampaha. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT 4. A. Dissanayake, 19A, Kirindivita, Gampaha. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT 1. Sujatha Kuruppu, 19A, Kirindivita, Gampaha. 2. Gamini Wanshanatha Kuruppu, Kirindivita, Gampaha. 3. Seetha Perera, 19D, Kirindivita, Gampaha. DEFENDANT – APPELLANT - APPELLANTS Vs. Don Sunil Shantha Kuruppu, No. 19B, Kirindivita, Gampaha. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT 4. A. Dissanayake, 19A, Kirindivita, Gampaha. DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice Janak De Silva 📄 Download
16 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/40/2021
SRI LANKA STANDARD INSTITUTION No: 17, Victoria Place, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. 1ST RESPONDENT-APPELLANT PROF. THEEKSHANA SURAWEERA Chairman of both Sri Lanka Standards Institution and the Council of the Sri Lanka Standards Institution, No: 17, Victoria Place, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. 2AAAAAAAAAA RESPONDENTAPPELLANT DR. SIDDHIKA G. SENARATNE, Director General of the Sri Lanka Standard Institution, No: 17, Victoria Place, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. 3АAА RESPONDENTAPPELLANT PROF. HEMA M K K PATHIRANA Council Member of the Sri Lanka Standard Institution, No: 17, Victoria Place, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. 4AAAAAAA RESPONDENTAPPELLANT W M D WIJEBANDARA Council Member of the Sri Lanka Standard Institution, No: 17, Victoria Place, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. 5AAAAAAA RESPONDENTAPPELLANT I.M.P. GUNARATNE Council Member of the Sri Lanka Standard Institution, No: 17. Victoria Place, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. 6AAAAA RESPONDENT-APPELLANT T.S.D. LIYANAGE, Council Member of the Sri Lanka Standard No: 17, Victoria Place. Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. 7A RESPONDENTAPPELLANT KEERTHI GUNA WARDANE, Council Member of the Sri Lanka Standard Institution, No: 17, Victoria Place, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. 8AA RESPONDENTAPPELLANT PROF. CHANDANA PERERA, Council Member of the Sri Lanka Standard Institution, No: 17, Victoria Place, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. AND OTHERS SRI LANKA STANDARD INSTITUTION No: 17, Victoria Place, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. 1ST RESPONDENT-APPELLANT PROF. THEEKSHANA SURAWEERA Chairman of both Sri Lanka Standards Institution and the Council of the Sri Lanka Standards Institution, No: 17, Victoria Place, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. 2AAAAAAAAAA RESPONDENTAPPELLANT DR. SIDDHIKA G. SENARATNE, Director General of the Sri Lanka Standard Institution, No: 17, Victoria Place, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. 3АAА RESPONDENTAPPELLANT PROF. HEMA M K K PATHIRANA Council Member of the Sri Lanka Standard Institution, No: 17, Victoria Place, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. 4AAAAAAA RESPONDENTAPPELLANT W M D WIJEBANDARA Council Member of the Sri Lanka Standard Institution, No: 17, Victoria Place, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. 5AAAAAAA RESPONDENTAPPELLANT I.M.P. GUNARATNE Council Member of the Sri Lanka Standard Institution, No: 17. Victoria Place, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. 6AAAAA RESPONDENT-APPELLANT T.S.D. LIYANAGE, Council Member of the Sri Lanka Standard No: 17, Victoria Place. Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. 7A RESPONDENTAPPELLANT KEERTHI GUNA WARDANE, Council Member of the Sri Lanka Standard Institution, No: 17, Victoria Place, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. 8AA RESPONDENTAPPELLANT PROF. CHANDANA PERERA, Council Member of the Sri Lanka Standard Institution, No: 17, Victoria Place, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 8. AND OTHERS
⚖ Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando 📄 Download
16 Jan 2026 SC/FR/70/2025
1. Kurudu Hewage Miheli Thisakya No. 143, New Housing Scheme, Nupe, Matara. (Minor) 2. Wedage Imesha Madumali No. 143, New Housing Scheme, Nupe, Matara. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Ms. I.S. Siribaddana Principal 2. Ms. D.P. Kodithuwakku Deputy Principal 3. Ms. R.P.L Sandeepani Secretary of the Interview Board, (Admissions to Year 1 - 2025) 4. Ms. P.E.Mudalige 5. Mr. P.G.Sumanasiri 6. Ms. Kumudini Abeygunawardena 4th to 6th Above all: Members of the Interview Board, (Admissions to Year 1-2025) 1st to 6th Respondents all of Sujatha Vidyalaya, Rahula Road, Matara 7. Ms. P.B.K. Dissanayake President of the Appeal Board (Admissions to Year 1 - 2025), Deputy Director of Education, Zonal Education Office – Matara 8. Ms. P.P.G. Sandamali Secretary of the Appeal Board, (Admissions to Year 1- 2025) Assistant Principal, Sujatha Vidyalaya, Rahula Road, Matara. 9. Mr. A.K. Piyarathna Deputy Principal, Mahinda Rajapaksa College, Matara. 10. Ms. M.K.J. Prabodhani School Development Society, Sujatha Vidyalaya, Rahula Road, Matara 11. Ms. Shyamalie Abeykoon Old Girls\' Association, Sujatha Vidyalaya, Rahula Road, Matara 9th to 11th Above all: Members of the Appeal Board, (Admissions to Year 1- 2025) 12. Ms. Himali Weerarathne The Directress, National Schools, Ministry of Education, \" Isurupaya\", Battaramulla. 13. Mr. Nalaka Kaluwewe The Secretary, Ministry of Education, \"Isurupaya\", Battaramulla. 14. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS 1. Kurudu Hewage Miheli Thisakya No. 143, New Housing Scheme, Nupe, Matara. (Minor) 2. Wedage Imesha Madumali No. 143, New Housing Scheme, Nupe, Matara. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Ms. I.S. Siribaddana Principal 2. Ms. D.P. Kodithuwakku Deputy Principal 3. Ms. R.P.L Sandeepani Secretary of the Interview Board, (Admissions to Year 1 - 2025) 4. Ms. P.E.Mudalige 5. Mr. P.G.Sumanasiri 6. Ms. Kumudini Abeygunawardena 4th to 6th Above all: Members of the Interview Board, (Admissions to Year 1-2025) 1st to 6th Respondents all of Sujatha Vidyalaya, Rahula Road, Matara 7. Ms. P.B.K. Dissanayake President of the Appeal Board (Admissions to Year 1 - 2025), Deputy Director of Education, Zonal Education Office – Matara 8. Ms. P.P.G. Sandamali Secretary of the Appeal Board, (Admissions to Year 1- 2025) Assistant Principal, Sujatha Vidyalaya, Rahula Road, Matara. 9. Mr. A.K. Piyarathna Deputy Principal, Mahinda Rajapaksa College, Matara. 10. Ms. M.K.J. Prabodhani School Development Society, Sujatha Vidyalaya, Rahula Road, Matara 11. Ms. Shyamalie Abeykoon Old Girls\' Association, Sujatha Vidyalaya, Rahula Road, Matara 9th to 11th Above all: Members of the Appeal Board, (Admissions to Year 1- 2025) 12. Ms. Himali Weerarathne The Directress, National Schools, Ministry of Education, \" Isurupaya\", Battaramulla. 13. Mr. Nalaka Kaluwewe The Secretary, Ministry of Education, \"Isurupaya\", Battaramulla. 14. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General\'s Department Colombo 12. RESPONDENTS
⚖ Hon. Justice Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna In the matter of an application under and in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. 📄 Download
16 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/56/2024
The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Ranbandaraghe Hasitha Sulochana Priyaratne No. 264/A/3, Wijeneyake Mawatha, Eheliyagoda Claimant-Petitioner-Appellant- Respondent The Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondent-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Ranbandaraghe Hasitha Sulochana Priyaratne No. 264/A/3, Wijeneyake Mawatha, Eheliyagoda Claimant-Petitioner-Appellant- Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe 📄 Download
16 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/4/2024
Warnakulasuriya Manori Dilmini Fernando No. 9/1, Luxman Mawatha, Sea Street, Negombo. Applicant-Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. B2 Engineering (Pvt) Ltd. Lot 88B, Ring Road, Phase II, Free Trade Zone, Katunayake. Respondent-Respondent-Respondent Warnakulasuriya Manori Dilmini Fernando No. 9/1, Luxman Mawatha, Sea Street, Negombo. Applicant-Petitioner-Petitioner Vs. B2 Engineering (Pvt) Ltd. Lot 88B, Ring Road, Phase II, Free Trade Zone, Katunayake. Respondent-Respondent-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Yasantha Kodagoda, PC 📄 Download
14 Jan 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/18/2021
Gamlath Kaushala Duminda Yahampath, No.65/18A, 5th Lane, Nawala. Defendant - Appellant People\'s Bank, No.75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Plaintiff - Respondent Gamlath Kaushala Duminda Yahampath, No.65/18A, 5th Lane, Nawala. Defendant - Appellant People\'s Bank, No.75, Sir Chittampalam A. Gardiner Mawatha, Colombo 02. Plaintiff - Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando 📄 Download
14 Jan 2026 SC/FR/282/2018
Justice A.H.M. Upaly Abeyrathne, No. 42/10, Beddagana North, Pitakotte. PETITIONER -Vs.- 1. A. Jagath D. Dias, The Director General of Pensions, Department of Pensions, Maligawatte, Colombo 10. 2. H.M. Gamini Wijesinghe The Auditor General of Sri Lanka, Auditor General’s Department No. 306/72, Polduwa Road, Battaramulla. 3. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 4. Hon. Minister of Defence, Minister of Finance, Economic Stabilisation and National Policies, Minister of Technology, Minister of Women. Child Affairs and Social Empowerment, Minister of Investment Promotion, Ministry of Defence, Defence Headquarters Complex, Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte. 5. Hon. Dinesh Chandra Rupasingha Gunawardena, MP (Hon. Prime Minister), Minister of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Ministry of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Independence Avenue, Colombo 7. and Others Justice A.H.M. Upaly Abeyrathne, No. 42/10, Beddagana North, Pitakotte. PETITIONER -Vs.- 1. A. Jagath D. Dias, The Director General of Pensions, Department of Pensions, Maligawatte, Colombo 10. 2. H.M. Gamini Wijesinghe The Auditor General of Sri Lanka, Auditor General’s Department No. 306/72, Polduwa Road, Battaramulla. 3. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. 4. Hon. Minister of Defence, Minister of Finance, Economic Stabilisation and National Policies, Minister of Technology, Minister of Women. Child Affairs and Social Empowerment, Minister of Investment Promotion, Ministry of Defence, Defence Headquarters Complex, Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte. 5. Hon. Dinesh Chandra Rupasingha Gunawardena, MP (Hon. Prime Minister), Minister of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Ministry of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, Independence Square, Independence Avenue, Colombo 7. and Others
⚖ Hon. Justice S. Thurairaja, PC 📄 Download
14 Jan 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/14/2016
1. Hycont Property Developers (Pvt) Ltd., 600 1/1, Kotte Road, Bangala Junction, Pitakotte. 2. Sithy Nehimiya Junaideen, 213, Ambagamuwa Road, Nawalapitiya. 3. Kalugurunnehelagegedara Abdul Rahuman Jamaldeen Sithy Zaneera, 213, Ambagamuwa Road, Nawalapitiya. DEFENDANT – APPELLANTS -Vs- People’s Merchant Bank PLC, 21, Nawam Mawatha, Colombo 2. Formerly at Level - 2, Hemas House, 75, Braybroke Place, Colombo 2. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT 1. Hycont Property Developers (Pvt) Ltd., 600 1/1, Kotte Road, Bangala Junction, Pitakotte. 2. Sithy Nehimiya Junaideen, 213, Ambagamuwa Road, Nawalapitiya. 3. Kalugurunnehelagegedara Abdul Rahuman Jamaldeen Sithy Zaneera, 213, Ambagamuwa Road, Nawalapitiya. DEFENDANT – APPELLANTS -Vs- People’s Merchant Bank PLC, 21, Nawam Mawatha, Colombo 2. Formerly at Level - 2, Hemas House, 75, Braybroke Place, Colombo 2. PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT
⚖ Hon. Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz 📄 Download
13 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/19/2020
Raluwe Don Francisco Sunil Chandradasa, No. 119, Chandra Niwasa, Welikala, Pokunuwita. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Seylan Bank Limited, No. 33, Sir Baron Jayathilake Mawatha, Colombo 1. 1st Defendant-Appellant-Respondent 2. Raluwa Don Francisco Chandrasiri, 3. Pushpa Manoranjani Chandrasiri, No. 41, Bellantara Road, Dehiwala. 4. I.W. Jayasooriya, No. 332/1, Mount Pleasant Gardens, Bowalawatta, Kandy. 2nd to 4th Defendant-Respondent-Respondents Raluwe Don Francisco Sunil Chandradasa, No. 119, Chandra Niwasa, Welikala, Pokunuwita. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. Seylan Bank Limited, No. 33, Sir Baron Jayathilake Mawatha, Colombo 1. 1st Defendant-Appellant-Respondent 2. Raluwa Don Francisco Chandrasiri, 3. Pushpa Manoranjani Chandrasiri, No. 41, Bellantara Road, Dehiwala. 4. I.W. Jayasooriya, No. 332/1, Mount Pleasant Gardens, Bowalawatta, Kandy. 2nd to 4th Defendant-Respondent-Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
13 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/22/2015
Kodithuwakku Archchige Dona Wimalawathie, No. 5, Main Road, Attidiya, Dehiwala. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. World Link Exports (Pvt) Limited, No. 9, Attidiya Road, Dehiwala. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent Kodithuwakku Archchige Dona Wimalawathie, No. 5, Main Road, Attidiya, Dehiwala. Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Vs. World Link Exports (Pvt) Limited, No. 9, Attidiya Road, Dehiwala. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
13 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/45/2017
2. Mohamed Kalid Sitti Fathuma, (deceased) 2A. Abdul Jabbar Fathima Rushdiya, 3. Ibrahim Rahila. 4. Ibrahim Majid, (deceased) 4A. A. Mohamed Kalid Sitti Fathuma, No. 128/4, Colombo Road, Mahamodara, Galle. 2nd to 4th Defendants-Appellants-Appellants Vs. Mohamed Fahim Wadood, No. 2678, Colombo Road, Mahamodara, Galle. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Mubashir Sali, (deceased) No. 143/2, Colombo Road, Mahamodara, Galle. Mohamed Zayan Sali, No. 143/2, Colombo Road, Mahamodara, Galle. Substituted 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 2. Mohamed Kalid Sitti Fathuma, (deceased) 2A. Abdul Jabbar Fathima Rushdiya, 3. Ibrahim Rahila. 4. Ibrahim Majid, (deceased) 4A. A. Mohamed Kalid Sitti Fathuma, No. 128/4, Colombo Road, Mahamodara, Galle. 2nd to 4th Defendants-Appellants-Appellants Vs. Mohamed Fahim Wadood, No. 2678, Colombo Road, Mahamodara, Galle. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Mubashir Sali, (deceased) No. 143/2, Colombo Road, Mahamodara, Galle. Mohamed Zayan Sali, No. 143/2, Colombo Road, Mahamodara, Galle. Substituted 1st Defendant-Respondent-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
13 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/66/2024
H.M. Thilakarathna (Deceased), R.A. Somawathi Ratnayake (Deceased), Herath Mudiyanselage Chandana Krishantha Thilakarathna, 5 Ela, Shravasthipura. Presently of North Kaluvila, 6 Ela, Hidogama, Anuradhapura. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Sirima Ratnayake, 2. D.M. Suriyabandara, Both of Iskola Hena Watta, 3 Ela, Hidogama. Defendant-Appellant-Respondents H.M. Thilakarathna (Deceased), R.A. Somawathi Ratnayake (Deceased), Herath Mudiyanselage Chandana Krishantha Thilakarathna, 5 Ela, Shravasthipura. Presently of North Kaluvila, 6 Ela, Hidogama, Anuradhapura. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. Sirima Ratnayake, 2. D.M. Suriyabandara, Both of Iskola Hena Watta, 3 Ela, Hidogama. Defendant-Appellant-Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
13 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/70/2020
Dayapala De Silva, No.478/4, Nugawela Road, Negombo. (deceased) Defendant 1. Ranaweera Arachchige Mary Agnes, 2. Asha Kumudini De Silva Jayawickrama, 3. Pradeep De Silva Jayawickrama, All of No. 478/4, Nugawela Road, Negombo. Substituted Defendants-Respondents-Appellants Vs. Welgama Aacharige Paalika Priyadharshanie Silva, No. 13/4, Raheemanabaad Road, Periyamulla, Negombo. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent Dayapala De Silva, No.478/4, Nugawela Road, Negombo. (deceased) Defendant 1. Ranaweera Arachchige Mary Agnes, 2. Asha Kumudini De Silva Jayawickrama, 3. Pradeep De Silva Jayawickrama, All of No. 478/4, Nugawela Road, Negombo. Substituted Defendants-Respondents-Appellants Vs. Welgama Aacharige Paalika Priyadharshanie Silva, No. 13/4, Raheemanabaad Road, Periyamulla, Negombo. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
13 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/80/2018
1. Palamuni Eresha Deepani Silva 2. Palamuni Nirosha Dilani Silva 3. Palamuni Rakhika Silva 4. Palamuni Dulanjali Deepani Silva All of No. 230/11, Massala, Beruwala. Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants Vs. Pearl Beach Hotels Ltd., Now known as Heritance (Pvt) Ltd., No. 315, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 2. 1st Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent Kerakoralage Evelyn Kulathilake, Hotel Swani Road, Moragolla, Beruwala. 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent Palamuni Dilupa Saman Priyalal Silva, Hotel Swani Road, Moragolla, Beruwala. 3rd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent Palamuni Lanka Ruwan Pushpika Silva, “Nandawasa”, Near Rail Gate, Payagala. 4th Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 1. Palamuni Eresha Deepani Silva 2. Palamuni Nirosha Dilani Silva 3. Palamuni Rakhika Silva 4. Palamuni Dulanjali Deepani Silva All of No. 230/11, Massala, Beruwala. Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants Vs. Pearl Beach Hotels Ltd., Now known as Heritance (Pvt) Ltd., No. 315, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 2. 1st Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent Kerakoralage Evelyn Kulathilake, Hotel Swani Road, Moragolla, Beruwala. 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent Palamuni Dilupa Saman Priyalal Silva, Hotel Swani Road, Moragolla, Beruwala. 3rd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent Palamuni Lanka Ruwan Pushpika Silva, “Nandawasa”, Near Rail Gate, Payagala. 4th Defendant-Respondent-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
13 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/86/2014
Bambaragama Somaratne Thero, Sri Jinendraramaya, Bullers Lane, Colombo 7. 4th Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Ingiriye Vipulasara Thero, Sri Bodhiraja Buddhist Centre, Maha Ingiriya, Ingiriya. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1. Mundukotuwa Shanthasiri Thero, Deepaloka Viharasthanaya, Ingiriya. 2. Julampitiye Sudhira Thero, Sri Devarakshitharama Viharasthanaya, Wagawatta, Poruwadhanda. 3. Wadugasthalawe Nanda Thero, Sri Dharmarama Viharaya, Dharmarama Road, Karagampitiya, Dehiwala. 5. Rattiyala Suddasi Thero, Sri Bodhirukkaramaya, Idanggoda, Kiriella. 6. Battaramulle Dharmaratne Thero, Mahindarama Viharaya, Nelum Kottuwa, Kiriella. 1st to 3rd, 5th and 6th Defendants-Respondents-Respondents Bambaragama Somaratne Thero, Sri Jinendraramaya, Bullers Lane, Colombo 7. 4th Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant Vs. Ingiriye Vipulasara Thero, Sri Bodhiraja Buddhist Centre, Maha Ingiriya, Ingiriya. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1. Mundukotuwa Shanthasiri Thero, Deepaloka Viharasthanaya, Ingiriya. 2. Julampitiye Sudhira Thero, Sri Devarakshitharama Viharasthanaya, Wagawatta, Poruwadhanda. 3. Wadugasthalawe Nanda Thero, Sri Dharmarama Viharaya, Dharmarama Road, Karagampitiya, Dehiwala. 5. Rattiyala Suddasi Thero, Sri Bodhirukkaramaya, Idanggoda, Kiriella. 6. Battaramulle Dharmaratne Thero, Mahindarama Viharaya, Nelum Kottuwa, Kiriella. 1st to 3rd, 5th and 6th Defendants-Respondents-Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
13 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/106/2013
Bisowasanthi Walgampaya, “Niwasa” Mamudawela, Katukumbura, Kadugannawa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant (Deceased) Sooriyasena Wimala Keerthi Hemachandra, “Niwasa” Mamudawela, Katukumbura, Kadugannawa. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. G.M.L. Sudatha Galkotuwa, 2. G.M. Henry Galkotuwa, Both of Walgampaya, Danthure. (Deceased) Defendant-Appellant-Respondent-Respondents 2A. G.M. Frank Sidantha Galkotuwa, Walgampaya, Ganthure. Substituted 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Respondent Bisowasanthi Walgampaya, “Niwasa” Mamudawela, Katukumbura, Kadugannawa. Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant (Deceased) Sooriyasena Wimala Keerthi Hemachandra, “Niwasa” Mamudawela, Katukumbura, Kadugannawa. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. G.M.L. Sudatha Galkotuwa, 2. G.M. Henry Galkotuwa, Both of Walgampaya, Danthure. (Deceased) Defendant-Appellant-Respondent-Respondents 2A. G.M. Frank Sidantha Galkotuwa, Walgampaya, Ganthure. Substituted 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
13 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/113/2018
Malavige Sunil Padmasiri, 136, Embulgama Road, Panagoda, Homagama. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1AA. Malavige Don Hemachandra Gunaratne, No. 234/1, Ranala Road, Habarakada, Homagama. IAA and IM Substituted Defendant- Appellant-Respondent 1B. Malavige Don Kamalawathie Gunaratne, 1C. Malavige Don Dayaseeli Gunaratne, 1D. Malavige Don Wimalawathie Gunaratne, 1E. Malavige Don Siriwardene Gunaratne, 1F. Malavige Don Ravipala Gunaratne, 1G. Malavige Don Chandrawathie Gunaratne, 1H. Malavige Don Seetha Milini Gunaratne, 1I. Malavige Don Sunitha Lalani Gunaratne, 1J. Malavige Don Sarath Kumara Gunaratne, 1K. Malavige Don Gamini Samankumara Gunaratne, 1L. Malavige Don Ayomi Gunaratne, 1N. Malavige Don Premawathie Gunaratne, All of No. 234/1, Ranala Road, Habarakada, Homagama. 1B and 1N Substituted Defendant-Respondent-Respondent Malavige Sunil Padmasiri, 136, Embulgama Road, Panagoda, Homagama. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1AA. Malavige Don Hemachandra Gunaratne, No. 234/1, Ranala Road, Habarakada, Homagama. IAA and IM Substituted Defendant- Appellant-Respondent 1B. Malavige Don Kamalawathie Gunaratne, 1C. Malavige Don Dayaseeli Gunaratne, 1D. Malavige Don Wimalawathie Gunaratne, 1E. Malavige Don Siriwardene Gunaratne, 1F. Malavige Don Ravipala Gunaratne, 1G. Malavige Don Chandrawathie Gunaratne, 1H. Malavige Don Seetha Milini Gunaratne, 1I. Malavige Don Sunitha Lalani Gunaratne, 1J. Malavige Don Sarath Kumara Gunaratne, 1K. Malavige Don Gamini Samankumara Gunaratne, 1L. Malavige Don Ayomi Gunaratne, 1N. Malavige Don Premawathie Gunaratne, All of No. 234/1, Ranala Road, Habarakada, Homagama. 1B and 1N Substituted Defendant-Respondent-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
13 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/121/2015
Abdul Majeed Mohamed Rizvi, No. 47/3A, Richmond Hill Road, Galle. Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Mohamed Shiraz Anas 2. Mohamed Rilal Siththi Adahi, No. 26, A. R. Mohamed Mawatha, Darga Town. 1st and 2nd Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondents 3. Abdul Lahir Siskviniya Faheer, No. 51, Richmond Hill Road, Galle. 4. Kamburugamuwa Banduwathie, No. 47/48, Richmond Hill Road, Galle. 5. Muththusamiwelu, No. 47/82, Richmond Hill Road, Galle. 6. Arunan Kanchana, No. 47/82/1, Richmond Hill Road, Galle. 1st-4th Defendant- 3rd-6th Respondent-Respondents 7. Sellamma Adi, No. 51/1A, Richmond Hill Road, Galle. 5A Defendant-7th Respondent-Respondent 8. Abdulla Kyrun Nisa, No. 87/85, Richmond Hill Road, Galle. 9. Mohamed Rilal Mohamed Faheer, No. 53, Richmond Hill Road, Galle. 6th-7th Defendant- 8th-9th Respondent-Respondents Abdul Majeed Mohamed Rizvi, No. 47/3A, Richmond Hill Road, Galle. Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Mohamed Shiraz Anas 2. Mohamed Rilal Siththi Adahi, No. 26, A. R. Mohamed Mawatha, Darga Town. 1st and 2nd Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondents 3. Abdul Lahir Siskviniya Faheer, No. 51, Richmond Hill Road, Galle. 4. Kamburugamuwa Banduwathie, No. 47/48, Richmond Hill Road, Galle. 5. Muththusamiwelu, No. 47/82, Richmond Hill Road, Galle. 6. Arunan Kanchana, No. 47/82/1, Richmond Hill Road, Galle. 1st-4th Defendant- 3rd-6th Respondent-Respondents 7. Sellamma Adi, No. 51/1A, Richmond Hill Road, Galle. 5A Defendant-7th Respondent-Respondent 8. Abdulla Kyrun Nisa, No. 87/85, Richmond Hill Road, Galle. 9. Mohamed Rilal Mohamed Faheer, No. 53, Richmond Hill Road, Galle. 6th-7th Defendant- 8th-9th Respondent-Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
13 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/163/2016
Abeysekara Patabedendige Robin Rajapakshe, No. 112/9, Lebanan Road, Nuwara Eliya. Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Ashoka Gamini Hatharasinghe, No. 96A, Colombo Road, Polgahawela. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Abeysekara Patabedendige Robin Rajapakshe, No. 112/9, Lebanan Road, Nuwara Eliya. Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs. Ashoka Gamini Hatharasinghe, No. 96A, Colombo Road, Polgahawela. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
13 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/169/2018
3. Yapa Arachchige Amarasiri alias Wijenayakage Amarapala Udahawatta, Thiriwanagoda, Katuwana. 4. Yapa Arachchige Malhami, Udahawatta, Thiriwanagoda, Katuwana. (Deceased) 4A. Yapa Arachchige Amarasiri alias Wijenayakage Amarapala Udahawatta, Thiriwanagoda, Katuwana. Defendant-Respondent-Appellants Vs. Wijenayakage Albert, Kajjugahakoratuwa, Thiriwanagoda, Katuwana. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 1. Wijenayakage Dayawathie, Udagahawatte, Thiriwanagoda, Katuwana. 2. Wijenayakage Kusumawathie, C/O Gambara Kade, Haburugala, Sooriyawewa. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents 3. Yapa Arachchige Amarasiri alias Wijenayakage Amarapala Udahawatta, Thiriwanagoda, Katuwana. 4. Yapa Arachchige Malhami, Udahawatta, Thiriwanagoda, Katuwana. (Deceased) 4A. Yapa Arachchige Amarasiri alias Wijenayakage Amarapala Udahawatta, Thiriwanagoda, Katuwana. Defendant-Respondent-Appellants Vs. Wijenayakage Albert, Kajjugahakoratuwa, Thiriwanagoda, Katuwana. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 1. Wijenayakage Dayawathie, Udagahawatte, Thiriwanagoda, Katuwana. 2. Wijenayakage Kusumawathie, C/O Gambara Kade, Haburugala, Sooriyawewa. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
13 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/178/2025
Dona Chandra Malkanthi Weththasinghe, No. 215, Mahawila, Alubomulla. Presently of No. 78/2, Avariyawatta, Alubomulla. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Sooriyarachchige Dhanadasa, No. 381, S. Mahinda Mawatha, Alubomulla. 2. Sooriyarachchige Padmasiri, (deceased) S. Mahinda Mawatha, Alubomulla, Panadura. 2A. Palpolage Dona Shriyani Asoka, Lunumadalagahawatte, Galthude, Bandaragama. 3. Sooriyarachchige Jayasiri, No. 381, S. Mahinda Mawatha, Alubomulla, Panadura. 4. Sooriyarachchige Kanthi, No. 381, S. Mahinda Mawatha, Alubomulla, Panadura. 5. M. Justin Wimalasiri, No. 381, S. Mahinda Mawatha, Alubomulla, Panadura. 6. Mahapathirage Peter Perera, (deceased) Kurusa Junction, Alubomulla, Panadura. 6A. Maddumage Kusumaawathie, No. 122/3, Kurusa Junction, Alubomulla, Panadura. 7. Ileperumage Rathnasena, No. 378/1, S. Mahinda Mawatha, Alubomulla, Panadura. 8. Govinda Waduge Piyasena, (deceased) No. 247, Mahawatta, Alubomulla. 8A. Kulegoda Acharige Alan Nona, No. 244, Mahawatte, Alubomulla. 9. Walakulyarachchige Padmalatha, S. Mahinda Mawatha, Alubomulla, Panadura. 10. Thelge Artin Peiris, (deceased) No. 381, S. Mahinda Mawatha, Alubomulla, Panadura. 10A. Hewafonsekage Evlin Fonseka, No. 381, S. Mahinda Mawatha, Alubomulla, Panadura. 11. Sumith Jayakody, No. 194, Main Street, Panadura. 12. Kahandawelaarachchige Piyadasa Perera, No. 381/2, S. Mahinda Mawatha, Belikele, Panadura. 13. W. Sunil De Mel, No. 227, 7th Cross Street, Panadura. 14. Matara Badalge Jinapala, No. 378/3, S. Mahinda Mawatha, Alubomulla. (Appearing by Power of Attorney Holder, Manuwelge Lalitha) 15. Lokupathirage Alice Nona, (deceased) Kurusa Junction, Alubomulla. 15A. Mahapathirage Peter, (deceased and substituted by 6A Defendant- Respondent-Respondent) No. 275, Kurusa Junction, Alubomulla. Defendants-Respondents-Respondents Dona Chandra Malkanthi Weththasinghe, No. 215, Mahawila, Alubomulla. Presently of No. 78/2, Avariyawatta, Alubomulla. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs. 1. Sooriyarachchige Dhanadasa, No. 381, S. Mahinda Mawatha, Alubomulla. 2. Sooriyarachchige Padmasiri, (deceased) S. Mahinda Mawatha, Alubomulla, Panadura. 2A. Palpolage Dona Shriyani Asoka, Lunumadalagahawatte, Galthude, Bandaragama. 3. Sooriyarachchige Jayasiri, No. 381, S. Mahinda Mawatha, Alubomulla, Panadura. 4. Sooriyarachchige Kanthi, No. 381, S. Mahinda Mawatha, Alubomulla, Panadura. 5. M. Justin Wimalasiri, No. 381, S. Mahinda Mawatha, Alubomulla, Panadura. 6. Mahapathirage Peter Perera, (deceased) Kurusa Junction, Alubomulla, Panadura. 6A. Maddumage Kusumaawathie, No. 122/3, Kurusa Junction, Alubomulla, Panadura. 7. Ileperumage Rathnasena, No. 378/1, S. Mahinda Mawatha, Alubomulla, Panadura. 8. Govinda Waduge Piyasena, (deceased) No. 247, Mahawatta, Alubomulla. 8A. Kulegoda Acharige Alan Nona, No. 244, Mahawatte, Alubomulla. 9. Walakulyarachchige Padmalatha, S. Mahinda Mawatha, Alubomulla, Panadura. 10. Thelge Artin Peiris, (deceased) No. 381, S. Mahinda Mawatha, Alubomulla, Panadura. 10A. Hewafonsekage Evlin Fonseka, No. 381, S. Mahinda Mawatha, Alubomulla, Panadura. 11. Sumith Jayakody, No. 194, Main Street, Panadura. 12. Kahandawelaarachchige Piyadasa Perera, No. 381/2, S. Mahinda Mawatha, Belikele, Panadura. 13. W. Sunil De Mel, No. 227, 7th Cross Street, Panadura. 14. Matara Badalge Jinapala, No. 378/3, S. Mahinda Mawatha, Alubomulla. (Appearing by Power of Attorney Holder, Manuwelge Lalitha) 15. Lokupathirage Alice Nona, (deceased) Kurusa Junction, Alubomulla. 15A. Mahapathirage Peter, (deceased and substituted by 6A Defendant- Respondent-Respondent) No. 275, Kurusa Junction, Alubomulla. Defendants-Respondents-Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
13 Jan 2026 SC/APPEAL/213/2017
Jayalathge Amarsinghe, No. 10, Church Road, Gampaha. (Deceased) Plaintiff-Respondent Priyadarshani Geethika Amarasinghe, No. 8, Gajaba Mawatha, Negombo Road, Kurunegala. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. M.D. Ivon Wickremasinghe, 2. M.D. Karunawathie, 3. M.D. Anulawathie, 5A. M. Hemachandra, 6. M. Hemachandra, All of Pahalagama Nailiya, Boyagane. 1st to 3rd, 5A and 6th Defendant-Appellant-Respondents 4. M.D. Siyathu, Pahalagama Nailiya, Boyagane. 4th Defendant-Respondent-Respondent M.D. Udaya Kumara, Substituted 4th Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 7. Muthunayakage Malani Muthunayake, Kunupotha, Bandara Koswatte. 8. Muthunayakage Nimal Shantha Muthunayake, Nailiya, Boyagane. (Deceased) 8A. Marasinghe Pedige Suneetha, No. 96, Heanpitamulla, Yakkala. 9. M.P. Irene Premalatha, 271/1, Nailiya, Bogamuwa Road, Boyagane. 10. Muthugal Pedige Srima Subhashini Ariyarathne, 11. M.P. Niroshini Ariyarathne, 12. M.P. Lakshman Ariyarathne, 13. Chintha Priyadarshani Ariyarathne, 14. Chamila Sanjeewani Ariyarathne, All of Pahala Nailiya, Boyagane. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents Jayalathge Amarsinghe, No. 10, Church Road, Gampaha. (Deceased) Plaintiff-Respondent Priyadarshani Geethika Amarasinghe, No. 8, Gajaba Mawatha, Negombo Road, Kurunegala. Substituted Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Vs. 1. M.D. Ivon Wickremasinghe, 2. M.D. Karunawathie, 3. M.D. Anulawathie, 5A. M. Hemachandra, 6. M. Hemachandra, All of Pahalagama Nailiya, Boyagane. 1st to 3rd, 5A and 6th Defendant-Appellant-Respondents 4. M.D. Siyathu, Pahalagama Nailiya, Boyagane. 4th Defendant-Respondent-Respondent M.D. Udaya Kumara, Substituted 4th Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 7. Muthunayakage Malani Muthunayake, Kunupotha, Bandara Koswatte. 8. Muthunayakage Nimal Shantha Muthunayake, Nailiya, Boyagane. (Deceased) 8A. Marasinghe Pedige Suneetha, No. 96, Heanpitamulla, Yakkala. 9. M.P. Irene Premalatha, 271/1, Nailiya, Bogamuwa Road, Boyagane. 10. Muthugal Pedige Srima Subhashini Ariyarathne, 11. M.P. Niroshini Ariyarathne, 12. M.P. Lakshman Ariyarathne, 13. Chintha Priyadarshani Ariyarathne, 14. Chamila Sanjeewani Ariyarathne, All of Pahala Nailiya, Boyagane. Defendant-Respondent-Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
13 Jan 2026 SC/CHC APPEAL/13/2012
Talib Tawfiq Al Nakib, Flat No. 16-3C, Crescat Residencies, No. 75, Galle Road, Colombo 3. (Deceased) Petitioner-Appellant Abeer Talib Tawfiq Al Nakib, Shamiyah, House 2, Plot No. 8, No. 85, Ahamad Al Shuwaib, Kuwait. The Party Sought to be Substituted for the Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Hunter & Company PLC., No. 130, Front Street, Colombo 1. 2. Mohammed Furqan Dossa, 3. Mrs. Lakshmi Renuka Premani Dossa, No. 12, 37th Lane, Off Queens, Colombo 3. 4. Dias Karunaratne Hettiarachchi, The Registrar General of Companies, “Samagam Medura”, No. 400, D.R. Wijewardene Mawatha, Colombo 10. 4A. Mr. D.N.R. Siriwardena, The Registrar General of Companies, “Samagam Medura”, No. 400, D.R. Wijewardene Mawatha, Colombo 10. Respondents-Respondents Talib Tawfiq Al Nakib, Flat No. 16-3C, Crescat Residencies, No. 75, Galle Road, Colombo 3. (Deceased) Petitioner-Appellant Abeer Talib Tawfiq Al Nakib, Shamiyah, House 2, Plot No. 8, No. 85, Ahamad Al Shuwaib, Kuwait. The Party Sought to be Substituted for the Petitioner-Appellant Vs. 1. Hunter & Company PLC., No. 130, Front Street, Colombo 1. 2. Mohammed Furqan Dossa, 3. Mrs. Lakshmi Renuka Premani Dossa, No. 12, 37th Lane, Off Queens, Colombo 3. 4. Dias Karunaratne Hettiarachchi, The Registrar General of Companies, “Samagam Medura”, No. 400, D.R. Wijewardene Mawatha, Colombo 10. 4A. Mr. D.N.R. Siriwardena, The Registrar General of Companies, “Samagam Medura”, No. 400, D.R. Wijewardene Mawatha, Colombo 10. Respondents-Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
13 Jan 2026 SC/HC CALA/184/2016
Talib Tawfiq Al Nakib, Flat No. 16-3C, Crescat Residencies, No. 75, Galle Road, Colombo 3. (Deceased) Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Abeer Talib Tawfiq Al Nakib, Shamiyah, House 2, Plot No. 8, No. 85, Ahamad Al Shuwaib, Kuwait. The Party Sought to be Substituted for the Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. 1. Hunter & Company PLC., No. 130, Front Street, Colombo 1. 2. Mohammed Furqan Dossa, 3. Mrs. Lakshmi Renuka Premani Dossa, No. 12, 37th Lane, Off Queens, Colombo 3. Defendants-Petitioners-Respondents 4. K. H. Wilfred, No. 47/55, Perera Mawatha, Talangama South, Battaramulla. 5. M. Gajanayake, Ulpotha Farm, Bokki Ella, Boralanda. 6. L. Ettipola, 47/30, 1st Lane, Medawelikada Road, Rajagiriya. Defendants-Respondents-Respondents Talib Tawfiq Al Nakib, Flat No. 16-3C, Crescat Residencies, No. 75, Galle Road, Colombo 3. (Deceased) Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Abeer Talib Tawfiq Al Nakib, Shamiyah, House 2, Plot No. 8, No. 85, Ahamad Al Shuwaib, Kuwait. The Party Sought to be Substituted for the Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. 1. Hunter & Company PLC., No. 130, Front Street, Colombo 1. 2. Mohammed Furqan Dossa, 3. Mrs. Lakshmi Renuka Premani Dossa, No. 12, 37th Lane, Off Queens, Colombo 3. Defendants-Petitioners-Respondents 4. K. H. Wilfred, No. 47/55, Perera Mawatha, Talangama South, Battaramulla. 5. M. Gajanayake, Ulpotha Farm, Bokki Ella, Boralanda. 6. L. Ettipola, 47/30, 1st Lane, Medawelikada Road, Rajagiriya. Defendants-Respondents-Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
13 Jan 2026 SC/SPL LA/366/2022
Baddegama, Telikada-Majuwana Multi Purpose Co-Operative Society Ltd., Kurumeme, Galle Road, Baddegama. Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Wickrama Arachchi Ariyarathna Abeywickrama, Ganegama North, Baddegama. Applicant-Appellant-Respondent Baddegama, Telikada-Majuwana Multi Purpose Co-Operative Society Ltd., Kurumeme, Galle Road, Baddegama. Respondent-Respondent-Petitioner Vs. Wickrama Arachchi Ariyarathna Abeywickrama, Ganegama North, Baddegama. Applicant-Appellant-Respondent
⚖ Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena 📄 Download
13 Jan 2026 SC/FR/344/2016
Mudugamuwe Arachchilage Milan Chamara, Salgahawatta, Molagoda, Kegalle. Petitioner V. 1. Head Quarters Inspector Levangama, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Kegalle. 2. Pradeep Kalupahana, Assistant Superintendent of Police, ASP’s Office, Kegalle. 3. Lionel Gunathileka, Senior Superintendent of Police, SSP’s Office, Kegalle. 4. Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 5. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents Mudugamuwe Arachchilage Milan Chamara, Salgahawatta, Molagoda, Kegalle. Petitioner V. 1. Head Quarters Inspector Levangama, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Kegalle. 2. Pradeep Kalupahana, Assistant Superintendent of Police, ASP’s Office, Kegalle. 3. Lionel Gunathileka, Senior Superintendent of Police, SSP’s Office, Kegalle. 4. Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo 01. 5. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents
⚖ Hon. Justice K.Priyantha Fernando 📄 Download
 

Recent Posts

Court Holiday Notice – Poson Poya
 

Contact Us

 

Follow Us

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in Instagram