044-NLR-NLR-V-69-ABDUL-RAHUMAN-Petitioner-and-THE-MAYOR-OF-COLOMBO-Respondent.pdf
SANSONI, C.J.—Abdul Rahu-man v. The Mayor of Colombo
211
1965Present: Sansoni, C.J., and Slrimane, J.
ABDUL RAHUMAN, Petitioner, and THE MAYOR OF COLOMBO,
Respondent
S. C. 227j65—Application for a Writ of Mandamus
Mandamus—Delay in making the application—Effect—Butchers Ordinance, s. 1 (2).
In an application for a writ of mandamus on the ground that the MunicipalCouncil of Colombo did not comply with the statutory requirements of section7 (2) of the Butchers Ordinance—
Held, that in view of the delay on the part of the petitioner in asking formandamus, and the consequences of such delay, the application should berefused.
Application for a writ of mandamus.
Colvin R. de Silva, with P. O. Wimalanaga, for the Petitioner.
H. V. Perera, Q.C., with H. Wanigatunga, for the Respondent.
October 11, 1965. Sahsoni, C.J.—
This is an application for a Writ of Mandamus on the ground that theMunicipal Council of Colombo did not comply with the statutory require-ments of section 7 (2) of the Butchers Ordinance. That section requiresthe Council to publish in the Gazette an application for a butcher’s licence.It is not disputed that no such notice was gazetted.
The reason given on behalf of the Council is that no stall had beenapplied for by the petitioner at which he could have carried on his businessas a butcher, and unless he had a stall he could not be granted a butcher’slicence. Mr. Perera urged that there was no point in publishing thisapplication if it was going to prove worthless in the end.
We do not wish to go into this aspect of the matter, because we thinkthat this application must fail for another reason. The application was inrespect of the year 1965, and it was considered and refused on 16.10.64on the ground that a licence from the Municipal Treasurer had not beenissued to the petitioner to enable him to carry on a private beef stall at thepremises mentioned by him in his application. No application to thisCourt was made until June, 1965, and this application has now come upbefore us today for the first time. By the time the provisions of section7 (2) are complied with, the whole purpose of this application will be de-feated. It is sufficient for us to say that in view of this delay, and theconsequences of such delay, this application for a Writ of Mandamus mustfail. It is, therefore, refused with costs.
Sibjmane, J.—1 agree.
Application refused.