Arushan Raninkumar, Hillside Tea and Pharmaceuticals Suppliers (Private) Limited, and “Pet Vikatakiv” Debt Recovery and Investigation Services vs Mr. N.K. Ilangakone, Inspector General of Police – CA WRIT 323/2012-2012

In Arushan Raninkumar, Hillside Tea and Pharmaceuticals Suppliers (Private) Limited, and “Pet Vikatakiv” Debt Recovery and Investigation Services v. Mr. N.K. Ilangakone, Inspector General of Police, and others, the court addressed whether a letter issued by the Inspector General of Police inaccurately described the complainant in proceedings before the Magistrate’s Court of Kandy (Case No. 18913/2009), and whether the petitioners were entitled to a writ of mandamus and compensation as claimed. It was determined that the letter in question did not misstate the petitioner’s status, as the petitioner was found to be the “virtual” complainant rather than the official complainant. No prima facie case for issuing notice or awarding compensation was established. The claim for a writ of mandamus a