Attorney-General v. VaUiyamma Atchi
1949Present: Wijeyewardene C. J and Canekeratne J.ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Petitioner, and VALLIYAMMAATCHI, Respondent.
S. C. 318—Application fob conditional leave to appeal toHis Majesty the King in His Privy Council in D. C.Colombo 10 (S. C. 512).
Privy Council—Appeal by Crown—Security for costs—Grown not bound byrules—Rule 3 of Schedule to Appeals (Privy Council) Ordinance—Chapter 85.
The Crown need not deposit security for costs under rule 3 of the rulesto the schedule of the Privy Council (Appeals) Ordinance.
Application for conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council.
W. R. Weerasooriya, Crown Counsel, for the Crown in support.
N. M. de Silva, for the respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
(1875) L. R. 10 Ch. 230.(1865) 11 H. L. C. 558.
(1908) 11 N. L. R 75.
(1918) 20 N. L. R. 241.
WlJEYEWARDBNE C. J.—Attorney-General v. Valliyamvma Atchi
July 20, 1949. Wijeyewabdsm C.J.—
This is an application for leave to appeal to TTis Majesty in Councilfrom a final judgment of this Court.
Rule 3 of the Rules set out in the Schedule to the Appeals (PrivyCouncil) Ordinance enacts—
“ Leave to appeal under Rule 1 shall only be granted by the Court
in the first instance—
(а)upon the condition of the appellant …. entering into
good and sufficient security, to the satisfaction of the Coilrt,in a sum not exceeding Rs. 3,000 for the due prosecution ofthe appeal and the payment of all such costs as may becomepayable to the respondent …. -,
(б)upon such other conditions ….
It is contended by Mr. Weerasooriya that the Attorney-General whorepresents the Crown in this case is not bound to give security under thatRule. His statement at the Bar that it has been the practice1 for ‘theAttorney-General not to give security in such cases has not been canvassedby the Counsel for the respondent. That practice appears to follownaturally from the proposition that the Crown cannot be compelled topay but makes payment as an act of grace when ordered to do so by anyof His Majesty’s Courts. I may in this connection refer to the provisionsof section 462 of the Civil Procedure Code that “ no writ against personor property shall be issued against the Attorney-General in any actionbrought against the Crown in any case ”.
I am of opinion that the provision in Rule 3 (a) requiring the givingof security does not apply in the present case as the Rule does not stateexpressly that the right of the Crown is affected by it and as it does notappear by necessary implication that the Crown is bound by it (section 3of the Interpretation Ordinance).
Leave to appeal is granted under Rule 3 but such leave is not subjectto the condition in Rule 3 (a).
Cakekeratne J.—I agree.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Petitioner, and VALLIYAMMA ATCHI, Respondent