020-NLR-NLR-V-70-S.-KANAGASABAI-Petitoner-and-F.-CONRAD-PERERA-and-3-others-Respondents.pdf
78
H. N. G. FERNANDO, C.J.—Kangasabai v. Conrad Pcr^ra
1967 Present :H. N. G. Fernando, C.J., Tambiah, J., andSiva Supramaniam, J.S. KANAGASABAI, Petitioner, and, F. CONRAD PERERA and 3
others, Respondents
<ST. C. 195/65—Application for Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition
Debt Conciliation Ordinance {Cap. SI)—Appointment of Debt Conciliation Board—Validity.
In so far as the Debt Conciliation Board duly exercises its lawful powers,the Board does not hold judicial ofifico and, therefore, does not require to boappointed by the Judicial Service Commission.
Application for writs of Certiorari and Prohibition.
Thiagalingam, Q.C., with T. Parathalingam and K. Sivananthan,for the Petitioner.
Mervyn Fernando, Crown Counsel, for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents.
P.Somatillekam, for the 4th Respondent.
August 28, 1967. H. N. G. Fernando, C.J.—
The main point the Counsel for the petitioner has argued in thiscase was that the Debt Conciliation Boartl which functions under theOrdinance, (Chapter 81), exercises judicial powers and that, therefore, theBoard as presently constituted should have been appointed by the
Amolis Perera v. David Perera
79
Judicial Service Commission. We do not find that the Ordinanceentrusts to the Board any power to make judicial determination or judicialorders. In so far as the Debt Conciliation Board duly exercises its lawfulpowers, the Board does not hold judicial office.
The application is. dismissed with costs fixed at Rs. 500/- payable tothe 4th Respondent.
Tambiah, J.—I agree.
Siva Supramantam, J.—I agree.
Application dismissed.