Neraluva Gamage Nandasena Vs Priyantha Godagama Sahabandu and Others – CA WRT 0149/2018-2021

In Neraluva Gamage Nandasena v. Priyantha Godagama Sahabandu and others, the court considered whether a writ of quo warranto under Article 140 of the Constitution could be issued against the Respondents. The Petitioner’s absence and lack of representation at the hearing prompted requests for dismissal by both the 1st Respondent’s Counsel and the State Counsel representing the 2nd to 6th Respondents, citing lack of interest in prosecuting the application. It was held that the Petition should be dismissed and proceedings terminated, without an order for costs. The decision reiterates that due diligence and active prosecution are essential for relief in prerogative writ proceedings, underscoring that absence and non-prosecution by the Petitioner can justify dismissal irrespective of the merit