086-NLR-NLR-V-46-NANAYAKKARA-v.-GOVERNMENT-AGENT-WESTERN-PROVINCE-et-al.pdf
«68
WIJEYEWARDENE J.—Nanayakkara v. Government Agent, W. P.
1045
Present: Wijeyewardene J,
NANAYAKKARA v. GOVERNMENT AGENT, WESTERNPROVINCE et al.
In the Matter of an Application on the Postmaster-Generalto produce Copy of a Telegram in connection with anApplication for a Writ of Mandamais or in the alternativefor a Writ of Certiorari.
Telegram—Writ of mandamus or. certiorari—Application for the productionof a telegram—Powers of Supreme Court—Criminal Procedure Code, s. 67.
In proceedings instituted by the petitioner against the GovernmentAgent and another praying for a writ of mandamus or in the alternativetor a writ of certiorari, the petitioner applied for an order on thePostmaster-General to produce the original of a telegram alleged tohave been sent by a third party to the Government Agent.
Held, the Supreme Court had no power to order the production of thetelegram.
HIS was an application for the production of a telegram as an
A incidental step in proceedings in instituted for a writ of mandamusor in the alternative for a writ of certiorari.
H. W. Jayewardene in support.
H. A. Wijemanne C. C., for the Crown.
May 23, 1945. Wijeyewardene J.—
The petitioner applies for an order on the Postmaster-General toproduce the original of a telegram alleged to have been sent by one1). J. Wijeyeratne to the Government Agent, Western Province, on
T
Cur. adv. vvlt.
1 (1936) 38 N. L. R. 28.
Gooneratne and Thomit.
269
December 11, 1944. The present application is an incidental step in theproceedings instituted by the petitioner against the Government Agent,Western Province, and another praying for a writ of Mandamus or in thealternative for a writ of certiorari under section 42 of the CourtsOrdinance.
The petitioner’s Counsel was unable to cite any statutory provisionother than section 67 of the Criminal Procedure. Code which empowersthis Court to make an order in respect of a telegram in the custody of theTelegraph Authorities. That section refers to proceedings under theCriminal Procedure Code and is inapplicable to the present proceedings.The Petitioner’s Counsel invited me to grant the. application “in theexercise of the inherent powers of this Court ”. It is a sound legalprinciple that a decision given in the exercise of such powers should not beinconsistent with the express intention of the Legislature. Now Buie171 of the Ceylon Telegraph Buies made under section 5 of the TelegraphOrdinance (vide Subsidiary Legislature of Ceylon, Volume 2, page 386)provides that “ the originals or copies of telegrams shall not be shown,or the contents communicated, to any person other than the senderor the addressee after proof of identity, or the authorised representativeof either of them ”. Effect has to be given to that rule except in thosecases where its operation has been limited by some other provision of thelaw. It has to be noted that the English cases, e.g., Tomline v. Tyler 1with regard to the production of telegrams are not of assistance in decidingthe present question as section 23 of the Telegraph Act, 1869 (32 and 33Victoria c73), places officers of the Post Office under the same obligationas any other person to produce “ in any Court of Law when duly requiredso to do any written or printed message or communication ”.
For the reasons given above, I refuse the application.
Application refused.