In this case, the plaintiff challenged the decision of the Central Environmental Authority to withdraw its environmental licence which had been delivered for the construction of a metal crusher.

The plaintiff pointed out that he had received the licences from both the Central Environmental Authority and from the Pradeshiya Sabha and that he had started the building operation when the Central Environmental Authority withdrew its licence. The plaintiff argued that the decision to withdraw the licence was arbitrary and constituted a violation of his entrepreneurial freedom as provided by Article 14(1) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as they pointed out that the plaintiff had not received the trade licence which would have allowed him to start his activity and that he did not respect the recommendations of the Central Environmental Authority aimed at preventing noise and dust pollution arising from his metal crushing site.