073-NLR-NLR-V-64-R.-E.-S.-DE-SOYSA-Petitioner-and-J.-V.-FONSEKA-Commissioner-of-Agrarian-Serv.pdf
431
SRI SKANDA RAJAH, J.—de Soysa v. Fonseka
1962Present: Sri Skanda Rajah, J.
R.E. S. DE SOYSA, Petitioner, and J. V. FONSEELA (Commissioner of
IAgrarian Services) and 3 others, Respondents
!
S.G. 436 of 1962—Application for the issue of a Mandate in the nature of a
Writ of Mandamus in terms of Section 42 of the Courts Ordinance
Paddy Lands Act No. 1 of 1958—Appeal to Board of Review—Right of appellant toi obtain certified copy of the proceedings held by the Commissioner—Mandamus.
• • I The right of appeal granted by the Paddy Lands Act carries.with it the rightsj incidental thereto such as the right to obtain a certified copy of the proceedingsfrom -which an appeal is preferred.
-AlPPLICATION for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus on theCommissioner of Agrarian Services.
T. Samerawickreme, for Petitioner.
L. de Silva, .Crown Counsel, for the 1st Respondent.
November 27, 1962. Sri Skanda Rajah, J.—
This is an application for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus on the 1stRespondent the Commissioner of Agrarian Services by the landlord-petitioner.
> 2B.de P. 398.
432
SRI SKA NX) A RAJAH, J.—da Sotjsa v. Fonscka
It would appear that on a complaint made by one I. M. Abeyratna thetenant of the landlord-petitioner to the Commissioner of Agrarian Servicesthe landlord was called upon to show cause, if any, why the tenant shouldnot be restored to possession. The landlord made representations to theCommissioner, in this case to the Assistant Commissioner, who held aninquiry. Thereafter, by writing the Commissioner communicated hisdecision to the landlord.
The landlord is given the right of appeal to the Board of Review. Thisright has to be exercised within 30 days of the communication by theCommissioner.
The landlord exercised this right of appeal. But, when he made anapplication to the Commissioner to issue a certified copy of the proceedings,the Commissioner wrote back on the 31st of August, 1962, “ regrettingthat the copy of the inquiry proceedings could not be provided There-after, the landlord made an application to the 2nd, 3rd and ' 4threspondents, who formed the Board of Review, to order the Commissionerto issue a certified copy of the proceedings. The Board of .Reviewindicated that they had no authority to issue an order to the Commissionerto issue a certified copy. So the landlord has petitioned this Court prayingfor this Writ. Learned Crown Counsel has referred me to two authorities—Attorney-General v. K. Jeetin Singho 1 and Buddhadasa v. Mahendra 2.The former was an application for a certified copy of the first complaintto the police. It was ordered to be issued by this Court. The latter isone in which an application for a certified copy of a statement to thepolice was refused. It will be seen that the applications in those twocases were in respect of statements made to the police under the provisionsof Chapter 16 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In my view, these deci-sions can be distinguished from the matter that is before me.
In this case there is a right of appeal granted to the landlord. In myview, such a right also confers on” the appellant rights that are incidentalthereto. One of the rights that would be incidental thereto would be toobtain a certified copy of the proceedings in order that the appeal may beprosecuted properly.
Therefore, the questions whether this is a “ public document ” andwhether there is a “ right of inspection of the public document ** are notnecessary to be considered in this application. I wish to make it quiteclear that these matters are not decided in this application.,
It has been pointed out that there are special provisions in the .Criminaland Civil Procedure Codes to grant certified copy of proceedings in theevent of appeal and that no specific provision has been made in this Act,namely, the Paddy Lands Act, No. 1 of 195S. But, as I said earlier, theright of appeal carries with it the rights incidental thereto such as theright to obtain a certified copy of the proceedings from which an appeal ispreferred. Therefore, I allow this application 'with costs fixed atRs. 157-50.
Application allowed.
1 {1956) 57 N. L. li. 289.
{1956) 58 2V. L. R. 8.