056-NLR-NLR-V-67-J.-E.-PERERA-Petitoner-and-THE-MAYOR-OF-COLOMBO-Respondent.pdf
1962Present: Sri Skanda Rajah, J.J.E. PERERA, Petitioner, and THE MAYOR OF COLOMBO,
Respondent
S. C. 466J1962—Application for a Mandate in the nature of a Writof Prohibition on the Mayor of ColomboWrit of Prohibition—Scope.
A Writ of Prohibition lies only for questioning the jurisdiction of an inferiorcourt. It does not lie in respect of a purely administrative act.
Application for a Writ of Prohibition.
Frederick W. Obeyesekere, for Petitioner.
November 8, 1962. Sri Skanda Rajah, J.—
At the beginning I asked Mr. Obeyesekere, who appears in support ofthis application, as to the nature of this application, and he informed methat it is an application for the issue of a Writ of Prohibition on the Mayor
1(1949) SI N.L.R. 282.
of Colombo. I thereupon asked him as to the circumstances under whicha Writ of Prohibition can issue. Then he referred me to the case ofS-ubramaniam v. The Minister of Local Government and Cultural Affairs 1and to the case of Wijeysuriya v. Moonesinghex. The former case dealtwith applications for Writs of Certiorari and Quo Warranto, and thelatter dealt with an application for Mandamus. So, in my opinion,neither case has any relevance to the matter under consideration. Hals-bury’s Laws of England, 3rd Edition, Volumn 11, page 113, Article 211,runs thus : “ The order of prohibition is an order, issuing out of the HighCourt of Justice and directed to an ecclesiastical or an inferior temporalcourt which forbids that court to continue proceedings therein in excessof its jurisdiction or in contravention of the laws of the land ”. CrownPractice by Short and Meller 1890 at page 70 runs thus : “ A Writ ofProhibition is a judicial writ, issuing out of a court of superior juris-diction and directed to an inferior court for the purpose of preventingthe inferior court from usurping a jurisdiction with which it is not legallyvested. The writ is of very ancient origin and was generally issued bythe court of Queen’s Bench (although not exclusively so) being a prero-gative writ to prevent the encroachment of the ecclesiastical upon thecivil courts Further, the following passage appears : “It must notbe confounded with the remedy of injunction issued out of the Courtsof Chancery or Common Law against proceedings at law. Both havethe same object, but the difference between them is that an injunctionis directed against the parties litigant, while a prohibition is directedto the Court itself. An injunction usually recognises the jurisdictionof the Court in which the proceedings are pending, but the prohibitionstrikes at once at its jurisdiction”.
I would draw special attention to the fact that this writ lies only forquestioning the jurisdiction of an inferior court and that it does notlie in respect of this matter which is purely an administrative act ofthe Mayor. Obviously, this application has been misconceived and Itherefore refuse the application.Application refused.