045-SLLR-SLLR-2003-1-KUMARA-v.-THE-MAYOR-RATNAPURA-MUNICIPAL-COUNCIL-AND-OTHERS.pdf
Kumara v. The Mayor, Ratnapura Municipal Council
SC and others (Fernando, J.) 383
KUMARA
v.
THE MAYOR, RATNAPURA MUNICIPAL COUNCILAND OTHERS
SUPREME COURTFERNANDO, J.
ISMAIL, J. ANDWEERASURIYA, J.
SC SLA NO. 254/2002
C.A APPLICATION NO. 1103/2000
27TH JANUARY, 2003
Writs of certiorari and mandamus – Failure to perform duty is a precondition forissue of writ.
The petitioner applied for certiorari and mandamus against the 1 st respondentMayor of the Ratnapura Municipal Council (the Mayor) for an order to allocateshop No.41 in a new shopping complex constructed by the Municipal Council.The Court of Appeal dismissed the application on the ground that the. Mayorhad given an undertaking that the petitioner would be allocated a shop whichundertaking the Mayor was willing to honour.
Held:
There was no reason, to interfere with the judgment of the Court of Appeal.APPLICATION for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
384
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2003} 1 Sri L.R
Dr. Jayatissa de Costa with Chandana Gunaratne for petitioner.K. Indatissator 1st respondent.
Cur.adv. vults
May 12,2003.#
FERNANDO, J.
The petitioner applied for certiorari and mandamus against the1 st respondent, the Mayor of Ratnapura, in order to secure the allo-cation to him of Shop No. 41 in a new shopping complex con-structed by the Municipal Council. He pleaded that he had surren-dered the premises formerly occupied by him, in order to enable thenew complex to be constructed, upon a promise that he would beallocated Shop No. 41.
The Court of Appeal dismissed his application on the groundthat “there had been an undertaking given by the 1st respondent,despite the request by the petitioner for Shop Nos. 41 and 42 …that he would be allocated a shop, which undertaking the 1strespondent is still willing to honour in terms of P8”.
The petitioner applied for special leave to appeal. After bothCounsel were heard, they informed Court that they wished toexplore a settlement on the basis of paragraph 20 of the 1strespondent’s statement of objections – which referred to thatundertaking. Accordingly, order was reserved but the parties weregiven time till 21.02.2003 to file written terms of settlement.
No terms of settlement have been filed.
We see no reason to interfere with judgment of the Court ofAppeal. Special leave to appeal is refused without costs.
ISMAIL, J. – I agree.WEERASURIYA, J. – I agree.