Galagedarage Dayananda vs. Debt Conciliation Board, et al. – 382/2020-2022

In the case between Galagedarage Dayananda alias Dayananda Galagedara (petitioner) and Malani Abeywardena Ranathunga (Chairman), members of the Debt Conciliation Board, and other respondents, the central issue concerned whether the writ application was fatally defective due to the failure to name the “Debt Conciliation Board” itself as a respondent. The court held that the Board, being the body whose decision was challenged, was a necessary party to the proceedings, and its absence rendered the application defective. However, the petitioner was allowed to amend the petition to add the Board as a respondent, subject to paying costs to the 7th respondent. This decision reaffirmed the principle that all necessary parties must be properly cited in writ proceedings, with reference to both relev