THE EFFECTS OF THE DECLARATION OF DECLARATION ON SRI LANKA UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (2023)

1. Introduction

Without prejudice to legal remedies under public law, e.g. B. action, mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus & quo warranto, to remedy the ineffective action/omission of the administrative authorities, the courts have recognized that private judicial remedies, such as declaratory sentences and precautionary measures, can also be used to control the administrative authorities. The notice function is sometimes recommended as an effective weapon in the field of administrative law because it is not backed by formalities like other preferred remedies.

This article deals with the administrative implications of declaratory orders in Sri Lanka.

2. General determination decision

A declaratory judgment is a court order that simply establishes a person's rights or status without providing material relief or doing or refraining from doing anything. that is, it does not contain an execution aspect. This resource differs from other execution statements. In the case of an enforcement order, the court, after explaining the rights of the parties, proceeds to order the defendant to act in a certain way or to prevent him from certain actions. If such an order is disobeyed, the court orders sanctions against the defendant. In the case of declaratory sentences, however, the question of sanctions and non-execution does not arise. Because this order is only of a declarative nature.

The declaratory order is generally used in cases such as Thiagarajah v. Karthigesu ¹ involving rights/status of a person not related to administrative law, since in administrative law it helps to set the limits of their powers when there is doubt about the limit of their powers, if not if the decision made by officials administrative is legal or illegal.

3. Rules of determination in administrative law

In the words of Jennings

the declaratory sentence is the symbol of the legal opinion of the 20th century

Friedman thinks so.

The declaratory judgment is the most ubiquitous, but also perhaps the most universally useful, of the remedies currently available in administrative proceedings³

The effectiveness of this norm is to be feared, since there are no sanctions against administrative bodies or those who ignore it. But one should not worry too much about this aspect, since the court does not have to order the authorities to comply with court decisions with sanctions. In the case Attorney General v. Sabaratnam, Gratiaen.J dispels the confusion in the following words

Until now, the courts have always assumed, without disappointment, that their declaratory judgment decrees against the crown will be respected⁴

At one time, people preferred an explanatory action to an injunction petition under English law because of its flexibility and less restrictive technical details. Several important cases have arisen in declaratory proceedings in English law. Dyson v. Attorney General ⁵, Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission ⁶, Ridge v. Baldwin ⁷ and Barnard v. National Dock Labor Board ⁸ are just a few of them. As Bonchard said

The beneficial effects of this remedy cannot be denied ⁹

The substantive law relating to the declaratory order has been partially resolved. The Sri Lankan courts have exercised their jurisdiction to make binding statements with a view to affecting the rights and liabilities of the disputant.

This function is available for all administrative acts, whether or not they have judicial/quasi-judicial elements. Although this aspect affects the instrument, it can be used when there is doubt about the appropriate remedy. It is sometimes said that the only recourse is to challenge statutes, accessory actions, and subsidiary statutes through direct proceedings. v Minister of Housing and Local Administrations, doubts were raised as to whether it could be used to challenge the validity of administrative acts that, prima facie, were flawed by law, since they are valid until they are revoked by writ of execution ¹⁰. However, doubts arose after the judgments of Anisminic Etd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, Pearlman v. Wardens and Governors of Harrow School ¹¹.

The appeal is discretionary and the courts will not grant any recourse to make advance declarations about the future contingent claims of the litigant, it would also consider aspects such as

As Rubinstein 13 has pointed out, it is important to consider the extent to which this new system of review has provided fertile ground for Sri Lanka's administrative justice system to develop. There was some disagreement in Sri Lanka regarding the procedural aspect of this appeal.2 Various conflicting judgments of the Sri Lankan Supreme Court under the 1972 Constitutions, 78 have cast doubt on this appeal against administrative measures.

The legal provisions for arranging declaration in Sri Lanka must be observed. As provided in Section 19 of the Judiciary Act 1978,

Each circuit court is a registry court and has original jurisdiction within its district without restrictions in all civil, financial... in the future by law to the regional court

The above provision is almost equivalent to the jurisdiction of the District Court under the provisions establishing the jurisdiction of the District Court under the former Administration of Justice Act No. 44 of 1973 and Court Order No. 1 of 1889. But the The current passage speaks of unlimited original jurisdiction, while the earlier regimes spoke of original jurisdiction.

The Code of Civil Procedure, which establishes the rules for the initiation, processing and conclusion of civil proceedings, regulates the nature of the amparo or rulings that can be issued after the sentence has been handed down with the following effects

The case of Perera v. People's Bank¹⁴ raised the issue of whether a Sri Lankan district court has jurisdiction to issue a statement reviewing the legality of an administrative authority's decision. In summary, the facts of this case are as follows.

First of all, the question of the jurisdiction of the court was addressed. The trial judge ruled that all remedies available to the plaintiff must be obtained by written request.

The judges of the Supreme Court confirmed the verdict of the first instance judge. Judge Sirimane. J ¹⁵ When a legal authority takes legal action to obtain a decision, it is appropriate to seek an instrument of redress against the validity of that decision. He considered that English practice could not be followed, as the jurisdiction conferred on our courts by the Code of Civil Procedure to make declaratory judgments is not as wide as the unlimited declaratory jurisdiction of the English courts.

His lordship recorded that

District courts in this country are formed by law. Your jurisdiction and powers are vested in and limited by various laws. They have unlimited original civil authority…. But they do not have supervisory authority over persons serving judicial/quasi-judicial/other/judicial bodies. District courts were never considered superior courts. The local court is not responsible for issuing a decision in supervisory appeal cases to challenge the validity of a judicial / quasi-judicial act ¹⁶

Sea of ​​Zamir,

The competence of the higher courts to issue sentences is double: original and control. Initial jurisdiction can be invoked to resolve disputes in the first instance, while supervisory jurisdiction is exercised to review decisions made by other bodies. In many cases, the courts have original and supervisory jurisdiction. In this way, they can be used in a specific matter either in the first instance or, if the matter has already been decided by another authority, for the review of that decision ¹⁷

In the case of Ranasinghe v. Ceylon State Mortgage Bank¹⁸, the Supreme Court reached a different conclusion on the matter by a majority of four for a Ceylon State Mortgage Bank. The Court of Appeal decided that the decisions of the subordinate bodies cannot be reviewed by declaratory judgment, unless the court of origin is expressly empowered by law¹⁹. Judge Soza noted that he was not questioning the plaintiff's right to a declaratory judgment, but that a declaratory judgment revising a court decision should only be sought from a supervisory court.

However, the above reasoning did not find a majority in the Federal Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the district court had the right to grant the requested decision in the case.

Samarkoon.C.J. he disagreed with the statement that in such a case the plaintiff was only entitled to a per certiorari appeal. There is a difference between the appellate jurisdiction and the supervisory jurisdiction. The District Court does not have appellate jurisdiction. Regarding supervisory jurisdiction, he noted that when 'supervision' is used to mean 'verification', the law does not expressly or implicitly prohibit it.

The supreme courts under the Constitution are the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal ²⁰. However, an ordinary declaratory action cannot be brought before the Court of Appeal/High Court as the Constitution does not allow to challenge the decisions of the administrative authorities, there is a restriction in Sri Lanka on the forum in which such actions can be tried . be able.

It is generally accepted that a lower court or trial court has jurisdiction

it is local and is also limited in jurisdiction and powers to those matters and matters that are expressly conferred to it by its articles of incorporation or by custom ²¹

In the case of Peacock v. Bell, it was said

Nothing should be outside the jurisdiction of a higher court, except what expressly appears to be so; and, on the contrary, nothing will be the competence of a lower court except what is expressly established²²

According to article 217 of the CPC

a decree or court order may ....... declare a right or status

Therefore, the Code refers to the declaration as an order/decree. According to Gratiaon J. in Attorney General v. sabaratnam

It is important to realize that any decree against the Crown for the payment of money to an individual is itself declarative, though not in the ²³ form.

Therefore, whether a resource is sanctioned or not sanctioned will not change the nature of the order.

Wimalaratne. J. In issuing the dissenting decision in the Ranasinghe case, it was noted that CPC Section 217(G) did not authorize a district court to review and/or vacate decisions of a legal order. The District Court had authority to make a declaration only in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. As a trial court, the district court did not have supervisory/appellate jurisdiction over civil matters. His main argument was this

unless it is conclusively established that they are vested with specific jurisdiction, they cannot be presumed to have that jurisdiction ²⁴

Wimalaratne. J. reinforced this point by showing that if the legislature wished to grant the circuit court a right of appeal or review, it did so by law. As an example, the repealed District Court Order was given power of review in the District Court, that court had no inherent jurisdiction to review the decisions of a statutory court, his Excellency concluded. This is in line with the principles governing the powers of the courts.

4. Conclusion

According to § 23 of the Interpretation Ordinance

………if a court of original civil jurisdiction is authorized by an order, either before or after the entry into force of these Regulations, to enforce any right or status, such order shall not be construed as authorizing that court to maintain or enact or direct any action to establish any right or status for any reason arising out of, relating to, or inconsistent with any order, decision, finding, order or finding of any person, authority or court authorized to make or issue in writing by law. Provided, however, that the provisions of this section do not affect the power of that court to order damages ²⁵

The limitation mentioned in the above provision is clearly directed at the district court. In the Ranasinghe case, however, the majority decision avoided the application of that provision by interpreting that the benefit of the section would result from a provision or decision that a court would be authorized to make under any written law and that, if the Authority were shown to have no authority to make the contested order, which was a nullity provision that would not prevent a court from making judgment.

In the past, the District Court has made declaratory judgments in cases such as University of Ceylon v. Fernando, Munasinghe v. Banco Popular, Silva v. Attorney General for the review of the validity of the contested decisions. In the case of the University of Ceylon v. Fernando ²⁷, the Supreme Court revoked the decision of the Board of Residence and Discipline of the University. However, the Privy Council overturned the decision, but left open the question of the jurisdiction of the district court.

As a consequence of the foregoing, the legal position of the forum where the declaratory action of revision of an administrative act can be demanded is not unequivocal. However, Ranasinghe's decision is a judgment of the Divisional Court of the Supreme Court and would continue to bind lower courts.

1. Introduction

While public remedies such as certiori, mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus, quo warranto, and other injunctions provide relief against the inadvertent act or omission of administrative officials, courts have recognized that private remedies, such as declaratory judgments and injunctions, they can also be used to restrict administrative action. employees. , the ad hoc remedy is sometimes proposed as a more effective weapon in administrative law.

This article examines the impact of advertising regulations in Sri Lanka under the Administrative Code.

2. Mandatory public advertising

A declaratory judgment is a court order that simply establishes a person's rights/position without creating any real legal recourse or doing/prohibiting anything. That is, it does not have an executive aspect. This resource differs from other execution statements. In the case of an execution order, the court, after having expressed the rights of the litigants, orders or arrests the defendant with a specific instruction to act, without it being a penalty. Because this order is just an advertisement.

Ad hoc injunctions are generally used in cases involving non-administrative rights/status of an individual, such as property rights, wills, trusts, contracts, etc., as in Thiagarajah v. Karthigesu¹, and also help clarify legal jurisdiction. Also, does a person, an administrative officer, exercise his powers within his statutory jurisdiction? Or are the actions of the administrative authorities illegal? Or illegal? Use this solution to find out.

3. Publicity Ordinance in Administrative Law

The declaratory judgment is an icon of 20th century legal thought

these Jennings.

Among the remedies currently available for complaints against the administrative authorities, the declaratory sentence is common but effective³

As Friedman says, there are no penalties against administrative officials or those who disobey this order, there is nothing to worry about because the court does not have to order officials to abide by court decisions.

Courts always assume, without despair, that their declaratory orders against women will be respected ⁴

As in the case of Attorney General v. Sabaratnam, Gratiaen.J clears up the confusion. At one time, people under English law preferred the declaratory action because of its flexibility and less restrictive rules. Several important landmark cases arose in English law in declaratory judgments Dyson v Attorney General ⁵, Anisminic Ltd. v Foreign Compensation Commission ⁶, Ridge v Baldwin ⁷ and Barnard v National Dock Labor Board ⁸ to name a few.

The benefits of this solution are undeniable ⁹

As Bonchard says.

The substantive law relating to publicity orders has been partially clarified. Sri Lankan courts have used case law to issue publicity orders that implement and bind the purposes related to the rights and obligations of the litigant.

This service is available for all administrative procedures, whether or not they have judicial/quasi-judicial elements. Although it affects the instrument, it can be used when there is doubt about the appropriate remedy. As set forth in Healey v. Secretary of Health, PYX Granite Co.Ltd. v Minister of Housing and Local Government ¹⁰, doubts have been raised as to whether it can be used to challenge the validity of administrative processes affected by prima facie legal errors, since they are valid until they are revoked by an executive order. However, Anisminic etd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, Pearlman v. Harrow School Wardens and Governors Cases ¹¹ Doubts removed.

This remedy is compensatory; courts will not grant this remedy for the purpose of making predictions about the litigant's future contingent rights.

It has already been said that such aspects are also taken into account.

As Rubinstein 13 has pointed out, it is important to consider the extent to which this new review system has found fertile ground for development in the Sri Lankan administrative justice system. As to the practicality of this solution, there was some disagreement in Sri Lanka: two different conflicting judgments of the Sri Lankan Supreme Court under the 1972/78 Constitution raised some doubts about this solution against administrative measures.

It is important to observe the legal provisions of the Advertising Regulations in Sri Lanka. As provided in Section 19 of the Justice Act 1978,

Each district court is a court of record and has unlimited jurisdiction in its district over all civil, tax and other matters etc. Any jurisdiction over other matters may be delegated to the district court by law.

The above provision is based on the old Administration of Justice Law No. 44 of 1973, Auto No. 1 of 1889 is almost equivalent to the jurisdiction of the District Court, but the current Section 19 provides unlimited jurisdiction and the former provides jurisdiction.

The Code of Civil Procedure specified the orders or precautionary measures that can be issued after the sentence has been handed down, establishing the rules for the initiation, processing and termination of civil proceedings. Article 217 contains the following provisions.

The case of Perera v. People's Bank¹⁴ raised the issue of whether a Sri Lankan district court has the authority to examine a certificate of illegality of a board decision. The facts of this case are summarized below.

First came the question of the legitimacy of the court. The trial judge said that if the plaintiff could appeal, he should do so in writing.

The High Court judges upheld the lower court judge's decision. Juiz Sirimane.J ¹⁵ When issuing the decision, the legal power is exercised by the judiciary and to challenge the finality of the decision, it is appropriate that the appeal be filed in writing, in which it is believed that the Spanish practice could not be followed by not be complete enough to justify it. Does the district court have the authority to issue the ad hoc order? On the question of fundamental importance

District courts in this country are created by law. Its legitimacy, its powers are conferred and limited by various laws. They have genuine and unconditional civil legitimacy…. but are not vested with supervisory authority over statutory courts/other bodies/persons carrying out judicial/quasi-judicial proceedings. District courts are not considered superior courts: a district court does not have jurisdiction to issue a notice of admissibility in cases seeking a non-arbitrary decision ¹⁶

said how

Sea of ​​Zamir,

Higher courts issue declaratory orders based on substantive normative jurisprudence. Substantive case law can be used to decide the arguments. Supervisory jurisprudence serves to review decisions made by other bodies. In many cases, courts have substantive regulatory jurisdiction. Thus, substantive case law is used to decide on a certain matter or, if the decision has already been taken by another authority, supervisory case law is also used to review the decision. ¹⁷

In the case of Ranasinghe v. The Ceylon State Mortgage Bank ¹⁸ the Supreme Court reached a different conclusion on the matter in a four-majority decision. Except that the Ceylon State Mortgage Bank is involved in this case, the facts of the case are similar to those of the Pereira Case. The Court of Appeals may review decisions of lower courts by mandate, unless the original court is specifically authorized by law. ¹⁹ Judge Soza did not question the plaintiff's right to a declaratory sentence, but held that declaratory sentences to review a judicial decision should only be requested from a control court.

But the above reasoning was not supported by the majority in the Supreme Court, which agreed that the District Court had the right to grant the instrument requested in the case.

Samarkoon.C.J. I cannot agree with the statement that the author can only remedy the situation through the certiorari; There is a difference between the appellate jurisdiction and the supervisory jurisdiction. The district court does not have appellate jurisdiction. Regarding regulatory case law, he noted that when 'supervision' is used to mean 'review', the law does not expressly/implicitly prohibit it.

The highest courts within the meaning of the Constitution are the High Court, the Court of Appeal²⁰ However, an ordinary appeal cannot be brought before the Court of Appeal / High Court, as the Constitution does not allow it to challenge the decisions of the authorities administrative. , complaints in Sri Lanka cannot be filed in any forum.

The lower court is

Scope of application, place of jurisdiction, places of jurisdiction / defined basic legal documents ²¹

Im Fall von Peacock contra Bell

Nothing is outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Federal Court and nothing is under the jurisdiction of the court of first instance, except as expressly provided by law²²

As I've said before.

According to article 217 of the CPC

A judgment/court order... can express a right or a position

Therefore, Coimbatore refers to the announcement as a decree/order. In the case Attorney General v. Sabaratnam, Gratiaon J.

It is important to know that there is a current ordinance against the state making a payment to an individual ²³

Therefore, the fact that an agreement has/has not sanctioned will not change the nature of the order.

Wimalaratne.J, who delivered a dissenting verdict in the Ranasinghe case. Section 217(G) of the CPC does not authorize a district court to review or reverse the decision of a legal order. The district court is only authorized to make a statement in the exercise of its substantive jurisdiction. As a trial court, the District Court does not have civil supervisory/appellate jurisdiction.

They cannot be granted a special permit unless it is established that they have a special permit ²⁴

As observed.

Wimalaratne. J. Reiterated his view that the legislature had given the district court the right of review, citing the example of the repealed district court ordinance, and therefore concluded that if the state legislature had not transferred the power of review to the district court, according to the law, the district court does not have jurisdiction to review regulatory court decisions.

4. Conclusion

According to § 23 of the Interpretation Ordinance

....Law granting to the Civil Court, whether the right/office was exercised before or after the entry into force of this Ordinance, any person empowered by codified law to have the power/to vacate the order, decision, court order/results, anyway. This law does not authorize the court to declare the status or issue an ordinance/order. However, the provisions of this section shall not affect the power of the court to order damages ²⁵

The limitation mentioned in the previous paragraph is clearly addressed to the District Court, but the majority decision in the Ranasinghe case prevented the application of this provision by the Code, that is, when the decision/ruling of a court empowered by law The contested party benefits from this section and will determine that the authority does not have the power to issue the contested/prevented order, the production order. This section does not prevent a court from granting

In the past, the District Court has made declaratory judgments in cases such as University of Ceylon v. Fernando, Munasinghe v. Banco Popular, Silva v. judicial legitimacy.

From the foregoing it is clear that the court has the power to review declaratory judgment claims in accordance with the law of the land; however, the Supreme Court's decision in the Ranasinghe case will remain binding on the lower courts.