2012 1 SLR 387

• Jurisdiction: Sri Lanka
• Court: Court of Appeal (Sri Lanka)
• Date: 19 February 2009
• Case Number: 2012SLR1V387

387

SREE NARAYAN GURU SOCIETY
VS.
COLOMBO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

COURT OF APPEAL
SRI SKANDARAJAH J
CA 2125/2005 (WRIT)
JUNE 11,2008
OCTOBER 20.2008
DECEMBER 15, 2008

Writ of Mandamus- Urban Development Authority Act- Sections 3, 8(i), 23(5), 28A -Development Activity- Municipal Councils Ordinance Section 37, 37(1) 155 - Permit issued to construct temporary structures withdrawn - Can the Authority remove the structures?- Public duty- Development Activities?

The 3^rd Respondent the Municipal Council Commissioner has granted permits to the 4^th - 8^th Respondents to have stalls on the pavement - complained of. On complaints made by the Petitioner, the permit was cancelled. These temporary structures were not removed. The 1^st Respondent who is the Municipal Council refused to act. The Respondents contended that the power to issue permits for the purpose of carrying out any development activity in any development area rests with the U.D.A, and action has to be taken by the UDA and not the 1^st Respondent -Colombo Municipal Council. The power to issue permits in any development area rests with the UDA and any development activity commenced and continued without a permit action has to be taken by the U.D.A.

Held:

1, The 3^rd Respondent has temporarily allocated a site under Section 155 of the Municipal Councils Ordinance in the land vested with the 1^st Respondent under Section 37 of the Municipal Councils Ordinance.

2. The 3^rd Respondent Municipal Commissioner has cancelled and withdrawn the authority given to the 4-8th Respondents to use the site for pavement stalls. The powers exercised by the 1-3^rd Respondents is this power vested with them and not the power delegated under Section 23(5) of the UDA Act. The temporary structures were constructed with the permission of the 3^rd Respondent and they would not fall under the Urban Development Authority.

3. The duty to establish markets is distinct and different from the duty to maintain thoroughfares free and unimpaired. A Council cannot discharge that duty in such a way to cut across another duty.

388

4. The 1^st-3^rd Respondents have a public duty to remove the structures for the free and unimpeded use of the pavement.

APPLICATION for a writ of Mandamus.

Cases referred to :

1. Jayasinghe v. Seethawakapura Urban Council and Others 2003 3 Sri L.R. 40 and 42

2. Liyanage and others vs. Gampaha Urban Council- 1991- 1 SLR 1

Nihal Jayamanne P. C with Anandalal Nanayakkara and Dilhan de Silva for the Petitioner.

Channa Nilanduwa for the 1-3rd Respondents.

Thevasenadhipathy for 4-8 Respondents

Cur.adv.vult.

February 19,2009
SRISKANDARAJAH. J

The Petitioner is a society incorporated by Act No. 48 of 1980 and is a corporate sole in the name of Sree Narayana Guru Society of Sri Lanka. The Petitioner society owns the property called the Sree Narayana Guru Memorial Malayalee Hall situated at No. 133, Layards Broadway, Colombo 14. The Petitioner...