The origins, development and application of the "PUBLIC TRUST” Doctrine in Sri Lanka

Rajitha Perera, LL.B, LL.M (Colombo). Senior State Counsel - Attorney General’s Department of Sri Lanka(1) 

JSA LAW JOURNAL ISSN 2357-2884 2016 VOLUME - IV A Publication by the Judicial Services Association of Sri Lanka

(The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not represent that of the Attorney General’s Department or of any other Authority.)

Though the origins of the doctrine are widely attributed to the ancient laws of the Roman Emperor Justinian and the Justinian Code of 530 A.D.,[2] it is interesting to note the discussions on the development of the doctrine in Sri Lanka with references to the rich history of this country and not to Justinian.

“From time immemorial, the land has thus being held in “trust” for the people in this island”. Shirani Bandaranayake, J. in the Supreme Court Determination on ‘Land Ownership Bill’ [3] observed.

“Discussing the ancient history of land tenure, Hayley (Sinhalese law and Customs.  F.A. Haley, chapter II) states that the Kings were the owners of the soil. Contributing to this view H.W. Codington, (Ancient Land Tenure and Revenue in Ceylon, 1938) stated that,

The king was bhupati or bhupala, “lord of the earth”, “protector of the earth” or as the late Niti Nighanduwa (Chapter I, 2) terms Manu the Vaivasvata, the first king of the men,” lord (adhipati) of the fields of all.”

Amarasinghe, J. in Bulankulama and Six others v. Ministry of Industrial Development and seven others [4] in analyzing the historical development of the doctrine referred to the Mahawansa.

" The organs of State are guardians to whom the people have committed the care and preservation of the resources of the people. This accords not only with the scheme of government set out in the constitution but also with the high and enlightened conceptions of the duties of our rulers, in the efficient management of resources in the process of development, which the Mahavamsa, 68.8-13 sets forth in the following words.

“Having thus reflected, the king thus addressed his officers.

In my Kingdom are many paddy fields cultivated by means of rainwater, but few indeed are those which are cultivated by perennial streams and great tanks;

By rocks, and by many thick forests, by grate marshes is the land covered;

In such a country, let not even a small quantity of water obtained by rain, go to the sea, without benefiting man;

Paddy fields should be formed in every place, excluding those only that produce gems, gold, and other precious things;

It does not become persons in our situation to live enjoying our own ease, and unmindful of the people …..[5]".

Judge C.G. Weeramantry, Vice President International Court of Justice in Gabcikovo-Nagimoros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia[6]) – the Danube case) referred to another passage from the rich history of Sri Lanka in his opinion on the historical development of the doctrine.

 “Just as development was the aim of this system, it was accompanied by a systematic philosophy of conservation dating back to at least the third century B.C. The ancient chronicles record that when the King (Devanampiya Tissa)    247-207 B.C. was on a hunting trip (around 223 B.C.) the Arahat Mahinda, son of the Emperor Asoka of India, preached to him a sermon which converted the King. Here are excerpts from that sermon:”

“O great King, the birds of the air and the beasts have as equal a right to live and move about in any part of the land as thou. The land belongs to the people and all living beings; thou art only the guardian of it…”

A study of 68.8-13 of the Mahavamsa, the sermon by the Arahat Mahinda to King Devanampiya Tissa and the Justinian Code would indicate certain common principles. Yet, a careful analysis of the former would indicate that what is actually referred to therein is a concept that is much deeper and advanced than the latter.

Justinian recognized things such as the sea, the shores of the sea, the air and running water was common to everyone and that they can be enjoyed by all. The text from the Mahavamsa and the sermon by the Arahat Mahinda identify the equal right to live and to move about in any part of the land. The Mahavamsa and the sermon by the Arahat Mahinda proceed to say that “The land belongs to the people and all living beings; thou art only the guardian of it…” The element of the ruler being placed only as the guardian is not so clear in Justinian’s writings.

What is significant in the Public Trust Doctrine in the Sri Lankan context is the concept where the king or the ruler is placed as the guardian of the land. The statement that the land belongs to the people and all living beings thus the ruler is only the guardian of the same gives rise to the trust which is known as the public trust doctrine.

Thus the references to Mahavamsa and the sermon by the Arahat Mahinda by Amerasinghe, J. and Judge C.G. Weeramantry is of great value.

 The Doctrine

Though theoretically the doctrine may be founded upon matters with some nexus to the environment, the application of the doctrine in Sri Lanka has not necessarily been the same. In Sri Lanka, It has had a wide application from the dismissal of public servants to airwaves and television broadcasting; from land acquisition to the privatisation of state-controlled entities and to calling and the awarding of public tenders. 

De Silva v Atukorale [7] is an early instance where the Public Trust Doctrine was applied by the Supreme Court. Quoting Wade[8], it was emphasized at pg. 296 that;

“Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended”.

Bandara v Premachandra [9] is yet another application where the Supreme Court applied the Public Trust Doctrine. Fernando, J. (at page 312) reasoned that;

"The State must, in the public interest, expect high standards of efficiency and service from public officers in their dealings with the administration and the public. In the exercise of constitutional and statutory powers and jurisdictions, the Judiciary must endeavour to ensure that this expectation is realized."

In Prachanda v. Major Montague Jayawickrema and another [10] G. P. S. De Silva, C.J. held as follows:

"There are no absolute or unfettered discretions in public law; discretions are conferred on public functionaries in trust for the public, to be used for the public good, and the propriety of the exercise of such discretions is to be judged by reference to the purposes for which they were so entrusted."

In Fernando v SLBC [11] at page, 172, Fernando, J. made a reference to Public Interest in the following manner;

"….. it is relevant to note that the Government's Media Policy was intended to encourage criticism, in the public interest, in order to expose short-comings. If nothing else, the right to equality requires that the media itself is not immune from justifiable criticism, internally and externally."

In Bennett Rathnayake vs. the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation and Others[12], Fernando, J. observed that;

"The statutory powers which the 1st respondent has are not absolute, unfettered, or unreviewable; they are held in trust for the benefit of the public, and they cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or unreasonably. The airwaves are public property and the State is under an obligation to ensure that they are used for the benefit of the public."

In Jayawardene v Wijayatilake[13], Court observed;

"Respect for the Rule of Law requires the observance of minimum standards of openness, fairness and accountability in administration and this means - in relation to appointments to and removal from, offices involving powers, functions and duties which are public in nature - that the process of making a decision should not be shrouded in secrecy . . . ."

 at page 159 it was further observed that;

"It is accepted today that powers of appointment and dismissal are conferred on various authorities in the public interest, and not for private benefit, that they are held in trust for the public and that the exercise of these powers must be governed by reason and not caprice…”

In Re 19th Amendment to the Constitution[14]

The determination of the Supreme Court In Re 19th Amendment to the Constitution is a milestone in the development of the doctrine in Sri Lanka. The structure of the 1978 Constitution, the Sovereignty and the Power of the People, the Executive power of the People, the Legislative power of the People, the Judicial Power of the People and the exercise of those powers all were discussed in detail by Chief Justice S.N. Silva.

Having made extensive references to Article 3 [15] and Article 4 [16] of the 1978 Constitution, the court proceeded to elaborate on the significance of the words “the power of the People” referred to in Article 4 at pg 96 and 97.

“The powers of government are separated as in most Constitutions, but unique to our Constitution is the elaboration in Articles 4 (a), (b) and (c) which specifies that each organ of government shall exercise the power of the People attributed to that organ. To make this point clearer, it should be noted that subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) not only state that the legislative power is exercised by Parliament; executive power is exercised by the President and judicial power by Parliament through Courts, but also specifically state in each sub paragraph that the legislative  power "of the People" shall be exercised by Parliament; the executive power "of the People" shall be exercised by the President and the judicial power "of the People" shall be exercised by Parliament through the Courts. This specific reference to the power of the People in each subparagraph which relates to the three organs of government demonstrates that the power remains and continues to be reposed in the People who are sovereign, and its exercise by the particular organ of government being its custodian, for the time being, is for the People"

“Therefore, the statement in Article 3 that sovereignty is in the People and is “inalienable" being an essential element which pertains to the sovereignty of the People should necessarily be read into each of the subparagraphs in Article 4. The relevant subparagraphs would then read as follows:

(a)  the legislative power of the People is inalienable and shall be exercised by Parliament;

(b)  the executive power of the People is inalienable and shall be exercised by the President; and

(c)   The judicial power of the People is inalienable and shall be exercised by Parliament through Courts.

The power that constitutes a check, attributed to one organ of government in relation to another, has to be seen at all times and exercised, where necessary, in trust for the People. This is not a novel concept. The basic premise of Public Law is that power is held in trust. From the perspective of Administrative Law in England, the "trust" that is implicit in the conferment of power has been stated as follows:

A statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended[17]."

Court thus concluded that;

"The powers attributed to the respective organs of government include powers that operate as checks in relation to other organs that have been put in place to maintain and sustain the balance of power that has been struck in the Constitution, which power should be exercised only in trust for the People".

As said earlier, the determination in the Re 19th Amendment is significant in many ways. The Constitutional recognition of the doctrine via Articles 3 and 4 is remarkable. The Interpretation of the Supreme Court that the power remains and continues to be reposed in the People who are sovereign and its exercise by the particular organ of government being its custodian for the time being in trust for the people crystallizes the concept behind the doctrine in the Sri Lanka context.

In Mundy v. Central Environmental Authority and 3 others[18], whilst referring to earlier judgments on the Concept of Public Trust, Court reiterated that;

"… this Court itself has long recognized and applied the "public trust" doctrine: that powers vested in public authorities are not absolute or unfettered but are held in trust for the public, to be exercised for the purposes for which they have been conferred, and that their exercise is subject to judicial review by reference to those purposes “

 “… Administrative acts and decisions contrary to the "public trust" doctrine and/or violative of fundamental rights would be in excess or abuse of power, and therefore void or voidable."

In Environmental Foundation Ltd vs. Urban Development Authority[19], the Supreme Court made a reference to the sovereignty of the people in the light of fundamental rights in the following manner;

  “Article 4 (d) of the Constitution states the manner in which the sovereignty of the People shall be exercised in relation to the fundamental rights, as follows

“ the fundamental rights which are by the Constitution declared and recognized shall be respected, secured and advanced by all the organs of government, and shall not be abridged, restricted or denied save in the manner and to the extent hereinafter provided”

In Senarath vs. Chandrika Bandaranayake,[20] the Chief Justice Sarath N Silva, citing from the Determination of a Divisional Bench of seven judges in regard to the 19th Amendment observed;

“Sovereignty, which ordinarily means power or more specifically the power of the State as proclaimed in Article 1 is given another dimension in Article 3 from the point of the People, to include –

(1)              the powers of Government

(2)              the fundamental rights and

(3)              the franchise

Fundamental rights and the franchise are exercised and enjoyed directly by the People and the organs of government are required to recognize, respect, secure and advance these rights.

This specific reference to the power of the People in each subparagraph which relates to the three organs of government demonstrates that the power remains and continues to be reposed in the People who are sovereign and its exercise by the particular organ of government being its custodian for the time being is for the people (at page 98):

“Therefore, executive power should not be identified with the President and personalized and should be identified at all times as the power of the People”

“…. The 1st respondent and the Cabinet of Ministers were the custodian of public property and public funds. The property and funds will have to be dealt with according to the law for the benefit of the people; therefore, in my view, the law itself is the instrumentality through which custodians are guarded…. “

“ The facts that have been clearly established in this case prove that the 1st respondent and the Cabinet of ministers of which she was the head secured for the 1st respondent benefits and advantages in the purported exercise of executive power in breach of the provisions of the Presidents” Entitlement Act No.4 of 1986. Since executive power is exercised in trust for the People, such wrongful action is an infringement of the fundamental right to equality before the law guaranteed by article 12 (1) of the Constitution.”

The important principle formulated in this application is that the custodian of public property and public funds in dealing with public property and public finance is necessarily required to deal with such property and funds according to the law for the benefit of the people and the Rule of Law.

The Golden Era

The doctrine reached its peak during the period of 2007- 2009. The Supreme Court in three Fundamental Rights applications more commonly known and referred to as the LMS case, the Waters Edge case and the Sri Lanka Insurance case, delivered judgment after considering inter alia the Public Trust Doctrine.

In Vasudeva Nanayakkara vs. K.N. Choksy and Others [21] the Supreme Court at pg 64-65 of the judgment placed on record three well-established principles of law that were considered in coming to its conclusion of which the second principle was the Public Trust Doctrine.

“… as firmly laid down in the Determination of the Divisional Bench of Seven Judge of this Court in regard to the constitutionality of the proposed 19th Amendment to the Constitution (2002 3 SLR page 85) the principle enunciated in Articles 3 and 4 of our Constitution is that the respective organs of Government, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary are reposed power as custodians for the time being to be exercised for the people. In Bulankulame and others vs. Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development (2000 3 SLR p 243) this Court has observed that the resources of the State are the “resources of the People” and the organs of State are “guardians to whom the people have committed the care and preservation of these resources (at p.253). That, there is a “confident expectation (trust) that the executive will act in accordance with the law and accountability in the best interests of the people of Sri Lanka (page 258); 

In Sugathapala Mendis and another vs. Kankanige Mahinda Perera and 20 others[22]. Tillekewardane J. elaborated the Public Interest Doctrine in the following manner;

“Public Trust Doctrine” is based on the concept that the powers held by the organs of the government are, in fact, powers that originate with the People, and are entrusted to the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary only as a means of exercising governance and with the sole objective that such powers will be exercised in good faith for the benefit of the People of Sri Lanka. Public power is not for personal gain, favour, but always to be used to optimize the benefit of the People. To do otherwise would be to betray the trust reposed by the People within whom, in terms of the Constitution the Sovereignty reposes.

The principle that those charged with the upholding the Constitution- be it a police officer of the lowest rank or the President- is to do so in a way that does not “violate the Doctrine of Public Trust” by state action/inaction is a basic tenet of the Constitution which upholds the legitimacy of Government and the Sovereignty of the People[23].

Power exercised contrary to the Public Trust Doctrine would be an abuse of such power and in contravention of the Rule of Law. This Court has long recognized and applied the Public Trust Doctrine, establishing that the exercise of such powers is subject to judicial review

The Supreme Court observed that;

“The Public Trust Doctrine, taken together with the Constitutional Directives of Article 27, reveal that all state actors are so principally obliged to act in furtherance of the trust of the People that they must follow this duty even when a furtherance of this trust necessarily renders inadequate an ant or omission that would otherwise legally suffice.

In De Silva v. Atukorale (supra) the Court, quoting Wade (Administrative Law, 5th ed., and pp.353-354) observed that

... the powers of public authorities are therefore essentially different from those of private persons. A man making his will may, subject to any rights of his dependents, dispose of his property just as he may wish. He may act out of malice or a spirit of revenge, but in law, this does not affect the exercise of his power. In the same was a private person has an absolute power to release a debtor, or, where the law permits, to evict a tenant, regardless of his motives. This is unfettered discretion. But a public authority may do neither unless it acts reasonably and in good faith and upon the lawful and relevant grounds of public interest. Unfettered discretion is wholly inappropriate to a public authority, which possesses powers solely in order that it may use them for the public good.”

Tillekewardane J. at page 41 of the Judgment held that that:

“Public power must only be used strictly for the larger benefit of the People, the long-term sustainable development of the country and in accordance with the Rule of law”

The important principle laid down in this judgment is that the “Public Trust Doctrine” is based on the concept where the powers held by the organs of the government originate with the People and are entrusted to the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary only as a means of exercising governance and with the sole objective. These powers are to be exercised in good faith for the benefit of the People of Sri Lanka and public power is not for personal gain, favour, but always to be used to optimize the benefit of the People. Any exercise of Power contrary to the Public Trust Doctrine would be an abuse of such power and in contravention of the Rule of Law as Public power must only be used strictly for the larger benefit of the People.

In Vasudeva Nanayakkara vs. K.N.Chocksy)[24] and others. (Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation case) Amaratunga, J. at pg 56 observed”

“Fundamental rights jurisdiction forms a part of the equitable jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which exercises, at the highest level, the judicial power of the people according to the Rule of Law and the fundamental rights provisions enshrined in the Constitution.”

Court further observed that,

“The petitioners have filed this application in public interest alleging that the executive power of the people, delegated to the Executive by the Constitution, to exercise to the prejudice of the people. The trust reposed on the executive to which the peoples’ executive power has been delegated is, in the words of Amarasinghe J in Bulankulala case, “ the confident expectation(trust) that the executive will act in accordance with the law and accountability, in the best interest of the people”( 2000 3 SLR 243 at 258.) The rule’s trusteeship of the resources of the State which belong to the people is a part of the legal heritage of Sri Lanka dating back at least to the third century BC as pointed out by Justice Weeramantry in his separate opinion in the  International Court of Justice in the Danube Case, by quoting the sermon of Arahath Mahinda to King Devanampiya Tissa as recorded in the Great Chronicle- Mahawansa”.

This concept of the public trust which curtailed the absolute power of the monarch is in perfect harmony with the doctrine of public trust developed by the Supreme Court on the basis of sovereignty of the people set out in Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution, Article 12(1) and the principle of the Rule of Law, which is the basis of our Constitution. The Rule of Law is the principle which keeps all organs of the state within the limits of the law and the public trust doctrine operates as a check to ensure that the powers delegated to the organs of the government are held in trust and properly exercised to the benefit of the people and not to their detriment. When the Executive which is the custodian of the People’s Executive Power “act resources of the State, it is in the public interest to implead such action before Court.”

The public interest to keep the executive within the power given to it by law is the “positive component” in the right to equality.

In Azath Sally Vs Colombo Municipal Council [25] Shirani Bandaranayke, J. Observed that;

 “ This Court in Bulankulama and others v Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development and others (supra) had carefully considered the concept of public trust and had held that the ‘organs of State are guardians to whom the people have committed the care and preservation of the resources of the people….”

“The concept of public trust had been followed in several judgments of this Court and now it is an accepted doctrine that the resources of the country belong to the people; Sri Lanka’s sovereignty is in the people in terms of Article 3 of the Constitution and is inalienable and includes the powers of government, fundamental rights and the franchise; and the people have committed the care and preservation of their resources to the organs of the State, which are their guardians or trustees.”

In Adam Bawa Issadeen vs Sudharma Karunaratne, Director General of Customs and 20 others[26], Priyantha Jayawardena, J. made the following observation in relation to the powers of recruitment and promotion.

“The wide powers vested in those responsible for recruitment and promotions have to be exercised in the public interest and for the benefit of the public. The powers granted to the appointing authority are public in nature, to be held in trust for the public, and to be exercised for the benefit of the public. Failure in the exercise of these powers according to the stipulated rules warrants the intervention of courts.”

In Tiran P.P. Alles vs N.K. Illangakoon, Inspector General of Police[27] Sripavan, C.J observed;

“It is now well settled that powers vested in the State, public officers and public authorities are not absolute or unfettered but are held in trust for the public to be used for the public benefit and not for improper purposes. Where a Police Officer has discretion, the exercise of that discretion would also be subject to Article 12 as well as the general principles governing the exercise of such discretion. “

In Sithambiralage Martin Sebastian Premalal Perera vs Tissa Karalliyadda, Minister of Indigenous Medicine and others[28], Eva Wanasundera, J. whilst referring to several previous decisions of the Supreme Court observed that;

“The said authorities have specifically rejected the notion of unfettered discretion given to those who are empowered to act in such capacity and held that discretions are conferred on public functionaries in trust for the public, to be used for the good of the public, and propriety of the exercise of such discretions is to be judged by reference to the purposes for which they were so entrusted. It is clear that the Supreme Court has held that the discretion should be exercised in conformity with the general tenor and policy of the statute and for proper purposes and that it should never be exercised unreasonably.”

In Noble Resources International Pte limited, vs Hon. Ranjith Siyambalapitiya, Minister of Power and Renewable Energy[29] K. SRIPAVAN, C.J., observed that the powers of the State conferred on the Members of the Standing Cabinet Appointed Procurement Committee (SCAPC) and the Procurement Appeals Board (PAB) is to be held in trust for the benefit of the public.

Application of the Doctrine under the Sri Lankan Law

The Public Trust Doctrine finds itself a unique place in the Sri Lankan law.  As observed before, the application of the Doctrine in Sri Lanka encapsulates a wide spectrum and is not confined to the environment. One can safely conclude that this unique position was heavily influenced by the historical teachings and the constitutional reference to the “power of the People” in Article 3 and Article 4 of the Constitution.

Articles 3 and 4 narrates that the legislative power "of the People" shall be exercised by Parliament; the executive power "of the People" shall be exercised by the President and the judicial power "of the People" shall be exercised by Parliament through the Courts.

The significance of the specific reference to the “power of the People” in each subparagraph is that the power remains and continues to be with the People who are sovereign, and its exercise by the particular organ of government being its custodian, for the time being, is for the People.

Our courts have repeatedly held that the exercise of powers must be governed by reason and the powers should at all times used to optimize the benefit of the People. Further, the powers vested in the three organs of the government are to be used for the public good and such powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or unreasonably.

 “The organs of State are guardians to whom the people have committed the care and preservation of the resources of the people. This accords not only with the scheme of government set out in the Constitution but also with the high and enlightened conceptions of the duties of our rulers, in the efficient management of resources in the process of development [30] ……”

This is settled law in Sri Lanka that powers vested in public authorities are not absolute or unfettered but are held in trust for the public and the exercise of such power by the custodian, for the time being, is for the benefit of the People.

Footnotes

[1] The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not represent that of the Attorney General’s Department or of any other Authority.

[2] Justinian recognized that “By the law of nature, these things are common to mankind – the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea. No one, therefore, is forbidden to approach the seashore, provided that he respects habitations, monuments, and buildings which are not like the sea, subject only to the law of nations.”

[3] Supreme Court Determination No 26-36 of 2003 Decisions of the Supreme Court on Parliamentary Bills, 1991 – 2003, Vol. VII pg. 455,

[4] ([2000] 3 Sri L.R. 243).

[5] Translation by Mudaliyar L. de Zoysa, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (C.B), vol. III No IX,

[6] GabCikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary /-Slovakia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1997, p. 7

[7] ([1993] 1 Sri L.R 283, 296-297).

[8] Administrative Law, 5th ed., pp. 353-354).

[9] ([1994] 1 Sri L.R 301).

[10]([1994] 2 Sri L.R 90).

[11] ( [1996] 1 Sri. L.R.,pg 157)

[12] ( [1999] 2 Sri L.R., pg 93 )

[13] ( [2001] 1 Sri L.R., pg 132)

[14] ([2002] 3 Sri. L.R., pg 85 )

[15] Article (3) "In the Republic of Sri Lanka sovereignty is in the People and is inalienable. Sovereignty includes the powers of government, fundamental rights and the franchise."

[16] Article (4) “The sovereignty of the People shall be exercised and enjoyed in the following manner

(a)    the legislative power of the People shall be exercised by Parliament, consisting of elected representatives of the People and by the People at a Referendum ;

(b)    the executive power of the People, including the defence of Sri Lanka, shall be exercised by the President of the Republic elected by the People;

(c)     the judicial power of the People shall be exercised by Parliament through courts, tribunals and institutions created and established, or recognized, by the Constitution, or created and established by law, except in regard to matters relating to the privileges, immunities and powers of Parliament and of its Members, wherein the judicial power of the People may be exercised directly by Parliament according to law……;”

[17] Administrative Law 8th ed. 2000 - H. W. R. Wade and C. F. Forsyth, p. 356

[18] SC Appeal 58/2003, SCM 20, January 2004,

[19]SC FR Application No 47 - 2004, SCM 23rd November.2005

[20] SC FR Application No 503-2005, SCM 03rd of May 2007

[21] SC FR Application No 209-2007 SCM 21.08.2007 ( LMS Case)

[22] SC FR Application No 352-2007 SCM 08.10.2008 (Waters Edge Case)

[23] at Page 13

[24] SC FR Application No 158-2007, SCM 04.06.2009 ( Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Case)

[25] SC FR Application No 252-2007, SCM 04.03.2009

[26]SC FR Application No 248-2011, SCM 17.12.2014 

[27] SC FR Application No 171-2015, SCM 02.09.2015

[28] SC FR Application No 891-2009, SCM 31.03.2016

[29] SC FR Application No 394-2015, SCM 24.06.2016

[30] Supra note 4

---