Friday Jan 10, 2025
Monday, 23 December 2024 03:07 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
Court of Appeal Judge M.T. Mohammed Laffar last week rejected the application by Epic Lanka Ltd., to extend the limited stay order previously granted against Thales DIS Finland and Just In Time (JIT) Technologies Ltd., and others over the supply of 750,000 Machine Reading Passports (MRPs).
The Judge also fixed the matter for inquiry of the Court of Appeal Application No.CA/WRT/0609/24 for 23 January 2025. In this case before Court of Appeal Judges Mohammed Laffar and P. Kumararatnam, Epic Lanka is contesting the Government’s decision to allocate 750,000 numbers for MRPs in the overall contract of 5 million ePassports awarded to Thales and JIT Consortium.
The learned Counsel for the 13th and 14th respondents (Thales and JIT) had objected to the said application on the basis that there is no interim order extended after 6 November 2024 up to that day.
On 6 November 2024, the 13th and 14th Respondents filed papers to vacate the interim order of the Petition. The Objections of the Petitioners on the said application was fixed on or before 2 December 2024. The inquiry was fixed on 9 December 2024. Extension of the stay order is not mentioned in the minute.
The learned President’s Counsel for the Petitioners filed a motion on 3 December 2024 to vary the inquiry date fixed on 9 December 2024. Order was made accordingly and the matter was re-fixed for inquiry on 23 January 2025. This date has no mention of the extension of the stay order.
On 9 October 2024, the learned President’s Counsel for the Petitioners filed a motion and moved the Court to call this case on that date. Accordingly, the matter was called in Court and the learned President’s Counsel for the Petitioners moved the Court to extend the interim order until 23 January 2025. The learned Counsel for the 13th and 14th Respondents had objected to the said application on the basis that there is no interim order extended after 6 November 2024 to that day.
Borne out from the Court record, the learned President’s Counsel for the Petitioners had not moved to extend the interim order as it is his duty to make an application for the extension of the interim order. At the same time, the Counsel for the 13th and 14th Respondents filed papers to vacate the interim order and the inquiry was fixed on 9 December 2024.
This Court has no objection in extending the interim order on the application of the Petitioners, if there should not be any objection by the affected parties. In this application, the 13th and 14th Respondents are vehemently objecting for the extension. As such, there must be a legal basis for the Court to extend the interim order.
Quoting Jayasinghe and another vs Pedris and Another (2005) 1 SLR 29 and Pakiyanathan vs Singaraja (1991) 2 SLR 205; the Court of Appeal judge observed that “negligence of a Counsel cannot be condoned and this Court under no circumstances will encourage the neglection of duties of a Counsel. As such, in this case, we see no basis to extend the interim order. An interim order is a discretionary remedy and the Petitioners cannot ask for an interim order as a right. In such a situation, he must be vigilant in making applications for extension. In this case, no application made for extension, not once, twice. It shows there is neglect on the part of the Petitioners.”
“Considering the nature and the circumstances of the case, I conclude that the application of the Petitioners to extend the interim order cannot be considered at this stage,” the Court of Appeal Judge said.