S.C. (FR) Application No. 90/97 - Case of Ganapriya Rohan Wijeysekara Abeysinghe Jayathilake
S.C. Application FR No. 90/97
CA Application No. 297/96
In the Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
Colombo 12.
Petitioner - Appellant
Ganapriya Rohan Wijeysekara Abeysinghe Jayathilake,
Guruwatta Walawa,
Metiyagoda, Ambalangoda.
Vs.
Respondents:
1. National Lotteries Board, No. 15, Lotus Road, Colombo 1.
2. K. Balapatabendi, Chairman,
3. Upali Liyanage, Member,
4. R. D. D. Jayawardena, Member,
5. N. H. Perera, Member,
6. G. A. R. Gunathilake, Member,
All of National Lotteries Board, No. 15, Lotus Road, Colombo 1.
Before:
Fernando, J.
Dheeraratne, J. and
Gunasekara, J.
Counsel:
T. Marapane, PC, with Jayantha Fernando for the Petitioner - Appellant ;
Saleem Marsoof PC, ASG, with K. Sripavan DSG, For the Respondents - Respondents.
Argued on: 28 September 2000.
Decided on: 12 September 2001.
FERNANDO, J .
The Petitioner Appellant won the first prize in the 635 Th. Mahajana Sampatha lottery. The principal question in this appeal is whether the 1 st. Respondent, the National Lotteries Board, paid the Appellant substantially less than the amount to which he was entitled under the 1 st. Respondent's Rules then in force.
Facts and Pleadings
During the period relevant to this appeal, the Mahajana Sampatha lottery was being conducted twice weekly. From the 594 th. Lottery (drawn on 31.5. 94) up to the 635 Th. (Drawn on 21.10.94) more than 400,000 ten - rupee tickets had been sold for practically every lottery. Each ticket had one letter of the alphabet and six numbers. The holder of the ticket having the letter and the six numbers (In their correct sequence, as drawn) was entitled to the first prize of two million rupees: but if there was no such ticket, then the holder of the ticket having the six numbers only (in their correct sequence) became entitled to a (reduced) first prize of one million rupees.
Further, the practice from mid-1993, up to and including the 594 Th. lottery, was to allocate 47% of the gross proceeds for prizes, and to carry forward to the next lottery, and to add to its first prize, the unutilized balance prize money (subject to a 5% deduction for the credit of the " Prize Reserve Fund "). Whenever there was a good sale of tickets, this sum was considerable: two million rupees would have been carried forward, if neither the first prize nor the "reduced" first prize was won, or one million rupees if the "reduced" first prize was won. That practice of enhancing the first prize was continued for successive lotteries until it was won. This enhanced first prize was called the "super prize". The "super prize" had snow- balled, starting from the 560th. Lottery, to Rs 35,678,690 for the 594 Th. Lottery.
That practice was changed after 1. 6. 94, because the Board of the 1st. Respondent decided that if and when the "super prize" for any lottery snowballed to ten million rupees, then out of the amount earmarked to be carried forward (as described above) only 10% would be added to the "super prize" of the next lottery, and the balance would be credited to a "Reserve Fund". Further, whenever a "super prize" was won, that Reserve Fund would be used immediately to boost the next "super prize" to a starting figure of ten million rupees.
Accordingly, from the 595 th. Lottery onwards, the "super prize" increased only very slowly, and reached Rs. 41,615,586 by the 635 Th. By that time, however, the amount in that Reserve Fund had increased to Rs. 43,339,455. When the Appellant won the "super prize" at the 635 Th. Lottery, he was only paid Rs. 41,615,586, but not any part of that Reserve Fund of Rs.43 million. However funds transferred from that Fund to enable a super prize of 10 million rupees to be offered for the 636 Th. Lottery.
I must mention that the 1 st. Respondent's "allocation statements" in respect of each lottery from the 594 Th. to the 635 th. Contained an entry in respect to "contribution to Super prize" (or first prize) for the next draw (or week). Although the amount of that contribution set out against each such entry was calculated in exactly the same way as before, nevertheless in each instance the sum actually used to augment the "super prize" offered for the next lottery was only 10% of that contribution.
The appellant avers that he later discovered that he had been underpaid. He made an application to the Court of Appeal for Certiorari and Mandamus, averring that:
(a) The amount of the prize should have been computed in accordance with the 1st. Respondent's Rules, as amended in 1993, which were in force at the relevant time (paragraph 13);
(b) "The Respondent Board has decided at the Board meeting held on the 27 Th. of April 1994 to add only 10 per centum of the total "First Prize" money not won for that particular draw, and the Respondent Board at the meeting held on or around the 31 st. of May 1994 decided to implement this decision with effect from the 1 st. of June 1994 even though the said Board decision had not been approved by the Minister and published in the Government Gazette so as to be a rule having force or avail in law" (paragraph 16);
(c) "The decision so arrived at by the Respondent Board was contrary to the provisions of the rules governing the conduct of lotteries, and…. no rules have been validly promulgated to enforce such a decision" (paragraph 17); and
(d) "The arbitrary and capricious decision of the Respondent Board to calculate the prize money due to him in accordance with [those two Board decisions] has deprived him of the amounts justly and legally due to him." (Paragraph 20}.
The Appellant annexed specimen lottery tickets (for the 631 st. And 635 Th. Lotteries) on the reverse of which it was stated if the letter and the six numbers matched, the super prize would be a minimum of Rs. 1,500,000; that the " super prize would be carried forward until it was won; and that if the first prize of Rs. 1,000,000 was not won, that sum would be added to the "super prize".
Pleading that the first Respondent was under a legal duty to comply with the Rules, made under statute, governing the conduct of lotteries, the Appellant prayed for:
(a) Certiorari to quash "the decision of the 1 st. Respondent and the 2 nd. To 6 Th. Respondents to pay the petitioner the amount due to him, as the winner of the 635 Th. Draw of the Mahajana Sampatha, in accordance with the decision arrived at by the Board on 27. 04. 1994"; and
(b) Mandamus to compel "the 1 st. Respondent and the 2 nd. To 6 Th. Respondents to calculate and pay the petitioner the amount due to him, as the winner of the 635 Th. Draw of the Mahajana Sampatha in accordance with Rule 4(viii)(e) of the National Lotteries Board (No.2) Rules, 1981, published in Gazette Extraordinary No. 502/12 of 13. 5. 88, No. 530/6 of 1. 11. 88, No. 582/23 of 3. 11. 89 and No. 758/13 of 17. 3. 93"
The 1 st. and 2 nd. Respondents filed a statement of objections, supported by the affidavit of the General Manager. The Appellant's averments in paragraph 16 (quoted above) were admitted without any reservation or qualification. It was pleaded that:
(a) "The Finance Act No. 11 of 1963 and the Rules and Regulations framed under that Act specified the conduct of the lottery";
(b) "The amount [sic] [? Amendment] made by the Rules published in the Gazette Extraordinary No. 758/13 of
17 th. March 1993 with regard to the carry forward of any un-won money is contrary to section 17 of the Finance Act….";
(c) "The Board did not adopt the prize structure described in sub-paragraph (e) of the Rules as amended", and did not calculate the super prize in the manner stipulated in those Rules, as those Rules were "ultra vires to section 17 of the Finance Act…"
(d) "The Board adopted a different method to award a manageable moderate prize for which wide publicity was given to the public prior to the draw", through the press and the electronic media;
(e) " The [Appellant] is legally entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,500.000 only in terms of the said Finance Act"; and
(f) "The [Appellant] has failed to comply with the Rule 3(1) (a) of the Court of Appeal (Appellate procedure) Rules 1990………in that the decision of the Respondents which is sought to be quashed" has not been produced.
The Respondents did not explain the manifest inconsistency
Between their position that " the carry forward of any un-won prize money is contrary to… the Finance Act" and the statements contained in the lottery tickets as to the carry forward of the "super prize" and the first prize.
The Court of Appeal upheld both preliminary objection of non- compliance with Rule 3 (1) (a), and the plea that Rule 4(viii)(e) was ultra vires.
Relevant Legal Proceedings
The Finance Act, No. 11 of 1963, provides as follows in sections 16(1) and 17:
* 16(1) the number of prizes to be awarded in each national lottery and the value of each of such prizes shall be as prescribed…………"
* 17(1) the proceeds of every National Lottery shall be paid in the first instance to the Fund of the Board.
(2) The Board shall pay to the Consolidated Fund through the Deputy Secretary to the Treasury the balance of the proceeds of every National Lottery after the deduction from such proceeds of an amount approved by the Permanent Secretary as the amount necessary for the purpose of:
(a) Defraying of reimbursing the Fund of the Board for the payment of, the expenses of conducting such lottery including the value of the prizes awarded in such lottery;
(b) [Paying the remuneration of the Board members and the staff];
(c) [Paying Provident Fund contributions];
(d) [Repaying loans granted to the Board]; and
(e) Meeting other liabilities of the Board.
Section 20 conferred on the National Lotteries Board the power to make Rules in respect of matters authorised to be prescribed. Such Rules would have effect only upon approval by the Minister.
The National Lotteries Board (No. 2) Rules, 1981, provided, in Rule 4, for a maximum of twenty four Mahajana Sampatha lotteries each year; for each ticket to be priced at two rupees; and for 39% of the gross proceeds of each lottery to be appropriated as prize money, as follows:
1. Rs. 250,000 /= or 17.5 %, whichever is less, for the first prize,
2. Rs. 150,000/= or 10.5 %, whichever is less, for the second prize,
3. Rs. 50,000/= or 3.5 %, whichever is less, for the third prize, &
4. The balance (of the 39 %) for 100 other prizes of equal value.
The Gazette of 13. 5. 88 substituted a new Rule 4, which provided for not less than twelve and not more than sixty lotteries each year, and for tickets to be priced at eight rupees. It further stipulated:
" 4(x) (a) Subject to the succeeding provisions of this rule. 47 % of the gross proceeds of each such lottery shall be allocated before each draw to a " Mahajana Sampatha Prizes Pool Fund " in the first instance. All prize money in every Mahajana Sampatha draw shall be disbursed from this fund. All prize money not won shall be credited to this fund.
(b) A prize of [Rs. 400,000] is offered as the first prize.
In the event of the first prize not being won at any particular draw, a sum of [Rs. 400,000] shall be added to the value of the first prize of the preceding draw not won and such accumulated sum shall be offered as the first prize of the immediately succeeding draw, and so on until such first prize is won…"
Provision was also made for several other prizes, with the same stipulation, that prizes not won would be credited to that fund.
The Gazette of 3. 11. 89 did not change the amount of the first prize, but added the following proviso to Rule 4 (X) (b):
"…Provided, howsoever, the Board of Directors may from time to time at its sole discretion limit to a maximum, the first prize. If the first prize is not won at succeeding draws and reaches in excess of the maximum first prize as decided by the Board, such excess of the maximum shall in its entirety be divided among the fourth prizewinners.
The Board of Directors may also from time to time at its sole discretion increase the prize to be awarded at any " special draw " out of the funds available in the " Mahajana Sampatha Pool Fund " from Rs. 400,000 to a maximum decided according to the provisions of this Rule. The Board shall give adequate publicity [to] such Special Award according to the Rules and prior to the draw. "
The Gazette of 17. 3. 93 provided for ten-rupee tickets, increased the maximum number of lotteries to 104, and introduced a new Rule 4 (viii) providing for new prize structures - of which only one is relevant to this appeal.
" (viii) The Board shall adopt any one of the following prize structures described in sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) below in respect of each draw after giving due notice to the General Public:
…………….
(e) The first prize of Rs. 1,500,000 will be awarded if the total sale for that particular draw is less than 350,000 tickets, or Rs. 1,750,000…. If the total sale ……
[Is between 350,000 and 399,999] or Rs. 200,000.
……….. If the total sale. Are more than 399,999, to the ticket matching the alpha character and all six numbers drawn, in order, reading from left to right?
In the event of the first prize not being won at any particular draw a prize of Rs. 500,000 [if the total sale is les than 350,000] …… or a prize of Rs. 1,000,000 [if the total sale is more than 399,999 will be awarded] to the ticket that matches all the six numbers drawn, in order reading from left to right.
The balance amount shall be added to the value of the first prize of I the immediately succeeding draw. In the event of such prize not being won at any particular draw that prize amount shall also be added to the immediately succeeding draw, and so on until it is won.
[Provision was then made for several other prizes.]
The balance amount shall be added to the first prize of the immediately succeeding draw after reserving 5% of the total amount allocated for the prize [prizes?] Of a particular draw, to Prize Reserve Fund in order to recoup the prize money transferred to the first prize."
A new Rule 4 (x) was also substituted:
" 4 (x) Subject to the succeeding (sic) provisions of this rule………………. 47% of the gross proceeds of each such draw shall be allocated before each draw, to " Mahajana Sampatha Prize Pool Account " in the first instance. All prize money not claimed within six months shall be credited to the Consolidated Fund. "
The reference to the " succeeding provisions " of Rule 4 is an obvious error, because Rule 4 (x) is the very last provision of Rule 4.
VALIDITY & APPLICATION OF RULE 4 (viii) (c)
According to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Respondents' contentions in that court were as follows:
". Rule 4 (viii) (e) has to be read with Rule 4 (x) …
. Thus 53% of the gross proceeds of each draw have to be credited to the Consolidated Fund in any event. Thereafter, of the balance 4%, any monies left, after meeting the expenses incurred in respect of heads (a) to (e) in section 17 (2) have also to be credited to the Consolidated Fund. This provision. Obliges the Board to limit the " Super Prize " to 4 % of the gross proceeds of each draw and advertise the maximum amount payable as the " Super Prize ". Due publicity
[Having been given] that the "Super Prize " would be Rs. 41,615,506 / 50 [which the Appellant was paid] the Board had acted in terms of Rule 4 (viii) (e) read with Rule 4 (x), as advertised."
The Court of Appeal held that:
" Rule 4. Has to be read with section 17. The Board is obliged under section 17 (2) to pay to the Consolidated Fund the balance of the proceeds of every lottery after deducting an amount approved by the Secretary of the Ministry of Finance. The Secretary has by Rule 4 (x) allocated 47 % from the gross proceeds of each draw for the payments under section 17 (2) (a) to (e). The money for the payment of prizes in a particular lottery has to come from that allocation. The Board cannot retain monies earmarked for prizes, which have not been won at a particular draw. Rule 4 (x) permits only prize money won but not claimed. To be retained for six months. If the Board wishes to pay out monies in terms of Rule 4 (viii) (e). As a super prize, the prize money has to be allocated from the 47 %, approved by the Secretary, of the gross proceeds of that particular draw as provided for in section 17 (2) (a). Since specific provision is made for the payment of prize money in that sub-section recourse cannot be had to section 17 (2) (e) to carry forward the "Super Prize " money under the head of " liabilities of the Board ". Section 17 does not confer on the Board authority to incur liabilities in respect of prizes not won. Rule 4 (viii) (e) is therefore incompatible with Rule 4 (x), and framed without due regard to situations that may arise as in the instant case. Rule 4 (x) overrides Rule 4 (viii) (e). It is the duty of the Board to adopt a prize structure, which could be implemented within the allocation of 47 % of the gross proceeds of each draw. …….
… The Respondents have paid [the appellant] more than what they had authority to pay under provisions of section 17 and Rule 4 (x) …"
The Respondents ' case is that the total prize money at any draw cannot exceed 47 % of the gross proceeds of that particular draw; that Rule 4 (viii) (e) is incompatible with Rule 4 (x), which overrides Rule 4 (viii) (e); that accordingly prizes not won cannot be carried forward to the next draw, but must be paid to the Consolidated Fund; and that the Appellant was legally entitled to only to Rs.1,500,000, but was paid more than his entitlement .
However, the 1 st. Respondent 's " allocation statements " show that every lottery between the 594 Th. And the 635 Th. The " Super Prize " on offer exceeded 47 % of the gross proceeds; and that prize money not won
(In excess of Rs. 80 Million) was carried forward, without being credited to the Consolidated Fund. Further, the Board decisions of April - May 1994 provided for a carry forward, and the specimen lottery tickets produced expressly stated that the " super prize" would be carried forward until it was won. Mr. Marapana also submitted (and Mr. Marsoof did not deny) that after the 635 Th. Draw, and even after the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the 1 st. Respondent continued to offer a " super prize " in excess of 47 % of the gross proceeds. In addition, the " allocation statements " show that 15 % of the gross proceeds was set aside for commissions, 21.5% for the Board 's expenses, and only 16.5 % for the Consolidated Fund (and not 53 %, which is what was actually due to the Consolidated Fund, if the Respondents are to be believed).
Manifestly, The Respondents ' submissions on this point were entirely lacking in bona fides.
I must nevertheless deal with the questions of law arising from those submissions.
Section 16 (1) confers power on the Board, subject only to the approval of the Minister, to prescribe the number and value of the prizes. It gives the Secretary no role in that matter. Rule 4 (x) was a valid exercise of that power, and accordingly 47 % of the gross profits had to be set apart for prizes. Rule 4 (x) did not allow any part of that 47% to be used, for expenses or any other purpose, or to be credited to the Consolidated Fund - with but one exception: that prizes not claimed had to be paid to the Consolidated Fund after six months. But that could apply to prizes won but not claimed; it could have no application to prizes not won.
It was not anyone 's case that Rule 4 (x) was ultra virus or invalid for any other reason. That Rule sets aside 47% for prizes alone. The view that 53% of the gross proceeds must be credited to the Consolidated Fund, and that expenses (including prizes) must be provided for out of the remaining 47%, is plainly contrary to Rule 4 (x).
Section 17 (2) conferred power on the Secretary to " approve " an amount to be deducted from the gross proceeds of every lottery. That cannot be interpreted in isolation, but must be considered in the context of other provisions: e. g. Section 16 (1) in relation to prize money, section 5 in relation to the remuneration of Board members, and section 6 (3) in relation to staff Provident Fund contributions. Section 17 (2) gave the Secretary neither the power to determine the amounts needed for those purposes, nor any discretion to increase or reduce the amounts prescribed by the Board and / or the Minister, under and in terms of section 5, 6 (3) and 16 (1). His function was purely ministerial: to give effect to what the Board and / or the Minister had determined by giving formal approval in respect of the aggregate of the amounts set out in paragraphs (a) to (e} of section 17 (2).
The sum which was required {by section 17 (2)} to be paid to the Consolidated Fund clearly did not include the value of the prizes described under section 16 (1) - subject of course to Rule 4 (x) in regard to unclaimed prizes.
The " allocation statements " indicate that the Secretary did not attempt to determine or approve those amounts individually for lottery. Instead, uniform deductions were made in respect of every lottery: 15% for commissions, and 21.5% for all other expenses, payments and liabilities. Considering that there were two lotteries every week, it was perhaps not even practicable to identify precisely the expenses attributable to each lottery.
I must turn now to the " carry forward " of prizes not won. Rule 4 (x), the validity of which is not in dispute, provides for the prize money of each lottery (47% of the gross proceeds) to be paid into the Mahajana Sampatha Prizes Pool Account. There is thus one account for all the lotteries, and not a separate account for each. Thus all prize money not won continues to remain in that Account. Rule 4 (x) contain no provision for its disbursement. Had there been no other relevant provision, I would have inclined to the view that it was never intended that these sums be paid to the Consolidated Fund. Rule 4 (x) manifests an intention that 47% be utilized for prizes for the benefit of those who buy tickets, and the balance for expenses and the Consolidated Fund. The probability that the first prize would be won at any lottery is rather low, and had there been no carry forward the result would have been that, over a period of time, the average amount paid out, as prizes would have been considerably less than 47%. If there had been a doubt, I would have preferred the interpretation more favorable to buyers, particularly as snow- balling is a legitimate device to enhance sales in respect of a continuing series of lotteries, thereby increasing revenue. Nothing in Rule 4 (x) points to any intention to prohibit snowballing.
However, Rule 4 (x) must not be interpreted in isolation. It must be taken in the context of other provisions, as well as the previous practice. That Rule is " subject to the succeeding provisions " of Rule 4. There being no succeeding provisions in Rule 4 it is clear that this is an error for
" Preceding " provisions, of which Rule 4 (viii) is one.
Thus in any event Rule 4 (x) must be taken in the context of Rule 4 as a whole, including Rule 4 (viii) (e). The latter Rule expressly provides for the snowballing of the first prize. There is no incompatibility between the two: Rule 4 (x) is subject to Rule 4 (viii) (e), and the latter supplies the omission in the former.
Furthermore, the Respondents had no discretion in the matter: Rule 4 (viii) (e) made carry forward mandatory. Previously, Rule 4 (x) (b) of the 1988 Rules, as amended by the 1989 Rules, provided for snowballing, but gave the directors discretion to limit the first prize. The 1993 Rules, while continuing the practice of snowballing, took away that discretion. The Respondents were therefore not entitled to substitute their own view - that the first prize should be a " manageable moderate prize " - otherwise than by amending the Rules.
To sum up, Rule 4 (x) is valid, and is perfectly consistent with Rule 4 (viii) (e), which is also valid; 47% of the gross proceeds must be allocated to the Prize Pool Account; a carry forward of prize money not won, to the extent set out in Rule 4 (viii) (e) is mandatory; neither the Secretary nor the Respondents had the power to prevent or reduce such allocation or carry forward . The Appellant was therefore entitled to have the "super prize " computed in terms of Rule 4 (viii) (e).
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 3 (1) (a)
Rule 3 (1) provides that every application to the Court of Appeal for a writ " shall be accompanied by the originals of documents material to such application (or duly certified copies) . . .. "
The preliminary objection taken was that the Appellant had not annexed " copies of the decision sought to be quashed ". The Appellant 's case was that he was not seeking to quash the April - May 1993 decisions, but the Respondent 's decision
(Taken after 21. 10. 94) to pay him the "super prize " calculated on the basis of those decisions.
The Court of Appeal observed that the decision to pay was based on the April - May decisions, and that if the decision to pay was quashed the Appellant would be obliged to surrender the amount paid out to him, and concluded:
" -------- He was (has) not expressed his willingness to do so . . . [He] will not be entitled to proceed with his application for other relief, since the second relief for Mandamus.is only for a variation of those decisions by directing the respondents to pay the [Appellant]. According to the rules. Framed under the Finance Act. To decide whether the decisions of 27. 4. 94 and 31. 5. 94 have been taken contrary to those rules; they have to be made available for scrutiny of Court …… the preliminary objection. Has therefore to be upheld. "
In order to succeed, the Appellant did not need to have the April - May decisions quashed. All he needed was a finding that the 1993 Rules were valid and that the Respondents had failed to pay in terms of those Rules. Thereupon he would have been entitled to Certiorari to quash the decision taken contrary to law, and Mandamus to compel payment in accordance with the law.
Indeed, the April - May decisions were not per se illegal: they could have been given effect to by an amendment to the Rules. What was wrongful was not those decisions, but their implementation prior to Rules being duly made. What the Appellant sought was to quash the [October] decision to implement the April - May decisions, and not the decisions themselves.
Even in respect of the April - May decisions, the objection was highly technical. The purpose of the Rule 3 (1) (a) was to ensure that the material necessary for adjudication was available to the Court. Here, the fact that the Respondents had taken decisions in April - May 1994 to calculate and pay the " super prize " otherwise than in accordance with the Rules was admitted in their pleadings, and the April - May decisions were irrelevant to the question before the Court of Appeal - whether the Respondents had failed to pay in accordance with the 1993 Rules . They were not material to the application.
DECISION
I therefore set aside the judgment and order of the Court of Appeal, and direct the issue of Certiorari and Mandamus, as prayed for, quashing the decisions of the 1 st. To 6 th. Respondents to pay the petitioner the amount due to him, as the winner of the 635 Th. Draw of Mahajana Sampatha, in accordance with the Board decisions of 27. 4. 1994 and 31. 5. 1994, and directing the 1 st. To 6 Th. Respondents (and their successors in office) to calculate and pay the petitioner the amount due to him, as such winner in accordance with Rule 4 (viii) (e) of the National Lotteries Board (No. 2) Rules, 1981, as amended.
The Respondents will pay the Appellant a sum of Rs. 30,000 as costs in both Courts.
The 1 st. Respondent is a board established by written law, other than the Companies Ordinance (and Act), with funds or capital wholly or partly provided by the Government, and does therefore Article 170 of the Constitution define a "Public Corporation" as. Consequently, both Article 154 (1) and section 11 of the Finance Act require that the accounts of the 1 st. Respondent should be audited by (or under the direction and control of) the Auditor - General. In the course of the oral argument, it appeared that this requirement was not being observed, resulting in the violation of the 1993 Rules going undetected. The Registrar is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Auditor - General.
JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT
DHEERARATNE, J. I agree.
JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT
GUNASEKERA, J. I agree.
JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT
