030-NLR-NLR-V-58-THE-CEYLON-COCONUT-PRODUCERS-CO-OPERATIVE-SOCIETIES-UNION-LTD.-Petitioner-an.pdf
1955Present : K. D. de Silva, J.
THE CEYLON COCONUT PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVESOCIETIES UNION LTD., Petitioner, and L. G.WEERAMANTRY cl a/., Respondents
S. C. Application 140 of 1954—In the -matter of theApplication for a Writ in the nature of Certiorariand Prohibition
Co-operative Societies Ordinance (Cap. 107)—Section 45—Rule 38 (14)—“ Legalpractitioner ”.
Rule 3S (I-f) of tho Co-operative Rules of 1930 provides : “In proceedings^■ before tho Registrar or an arbitrator or arbitrators no party shall bo represent edby a legal practitioner. ”.
Held, that an Advocate who has ceased to practiso as a lawyer for such rulong period as eighteen years cannot ho regarded ns a legal practitioner withintho meaning of the Rule. Tho fact that ho is entitled to practiso as a lawjcrat any timo does not affect tho position.
Obiter : There is no valid objection to a legal practitioner who is a member oftho Conunitteo or an office-boaror of a Co-operntivo Society representing thatSociety in his capacity as a member of tho Committee or an officer-bearer.
"-»T
PPLTCATIOX for a writ in the natnro of Certiorari and Prohibit ion.
R. S. R. Coomarasivamy, for the petitioner.
D. S. Jayawiclrama, Q.C., with H. L. de Silva, for the 2nd respondent-
' Cur. adv. mill.
1 11 Moo. P. C. 347 at 360.
DE SILVA, J.—The Ceylon Coconut Producers Co-operative SocietiesUnion Ltd. v. Weeranianlry
10S
September 9, 1955. K. D. de Silva, J.—
Tho petitioner and the 2nd respondent are Co-operativo Societies,duly registered under the provisions of tho Co-operativo Societies Ordi-nance (Cap. 107). A dispute touching tho business of these two Societieshaving arisen the matter was referred to tho Registrar of Co-operativoSocieties for decision in terms of Section 45 of tho Ordinance. On orabout the 14th February, 1954, the Registrar referred this dispute fordisposal to the 1st respondent as arbitrator. When the matter came upfor inquiry before the 1st respondent on tho 3rd day of March, 1954,Mr. S. W. R. X). Bandaranaikc, a committee member of the 2nd Res-pondent Society appeared before him and informed him that he hadbeen appointed to represent the 2nd respondent. The petitioner objectedto tlio 2nd respondent being represented by Mr. Bandaranaikc, on thoground that lie was a legal practitioner, being an advocate of the SupremeCourt. This objection was based on Rule 3S (14) of the Co-operativeRules of 1950. The 1st respondent overruled the objection. Thereaftertho petitioner made this application for a writ in the nature of Certiorariand Prohibition.
At tho hearing of this application Mr. Coomaraswamy conceded thathe was not entitled to apply for a writ of Certiorari and restricted theapplication to a writ of Prohibition. The Rule 3S (14) reads as follows :—
“ In proceedings before the Registrar or an arbitrator or arbitratorsno party shall be represented by a legal practitioner. ”
Mr. Bandaranaikc has stated that he is not a legal practitioner althoughJio is an advocate of this Court. He has not practised his professionfor a period of IS years. For tho purpose of this argument, Mr. Cooma-raswamy while conceding that Mr. Bandaranaikc is not in active practice,invited tho ruling of this Court on tho following two points :—
Is a lawyer who is not actively practising his profession a legalpract itioner within the meaning of rulo 3S (14) 1
Is a legal practitioner who is also a member of the Committeeor an office-bearer of a Co-operativo Society entitled to representthat Society in arbitration proceedings under Section 45 of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance (Cap. 107) as amended by Acts Nos. 2Lof 1949 and 17 of 1952 ?
9.. .
The 1st Respondent held that Mr. Bandaranaikc was a legal practitioner
although he is not in active practice, because his name appears on therole of Advocates and he has a right to appear in Courts of Law. Hefurther held that Mr. Bandaranaiko was entitled to represent tho 2ndrespondent because ho was seeking to do so not in his legal capacity butas a member of the Committee of tho 2nd Respondent Society. I amunable to agree with the 1st respondent’s view that Mr. Bandaranaikcis a legal practitioner within the meaning of Rulo 3S (14). The wordxc practise ” is defined in tho "Oxford Concise Dictionary-’ as "to
perform habitually ” 11 to exercise a profession ’"'and gives as examplespractising Doetor and practising Barrister as opposed to a retired Doctoror Barrister or ono -who is merely qualified as such. “ Practitioner ”is defined as “ one engaged in tho practice of any art, profession oroccupation Mr. Bandaranaike who has ceased to practise as a lawyerfor such a long period as eighteen years cannot therefore bo regardedas a legal practitioner irhhin the meaning of Buie 3S (14). The fact thathe is entitled to practise as a lawyer at an}- time does not affect the posi-tion. WTiether a person qualified to practise a profession is or is not apractitioner of that profession is a question of fact to be decided on thocircumstances of each case. This disposes of the 1st point raised byMr. Coomaraswamy. For tho purpose of this case it is not necessaryto give a ruling on tho 2nd point raised by him. I might howeverobserve that I see no valid objection to a legal practitioner who is amember of the Committee or an office-bearer of the Co-operative Societyrepresenting that Socioty not in the capacity of a lawyer but in his capacityas a member of the Committee or an office-bearer. I therefore dismissthe application with costs.
Applicalion dismissed.