The Petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash the decision of the Central Environmental Authority (C.E.A) approving the construction of the Southern Expressway linking Colombo to Matara on the basis that there was a failure to analyse or consider reasonable and environmentally friendly alternatives and the Environmental Impact Assessment Report did not provide adequate reasons for the rejection of alternatives to the Project. The Court of Appeal was of the view that it was not wholly correct to say that alternatives in place of the proposed project had not been considered, for in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report alternatives had been assessed or evaluated. There was also no merit in the second point abovementioned, in that the Environmental Impact Assessment report, in fact, gave reasons for rejecting the alternatives to the "Southern Expressway". The court emphasized that it was ill equipped, in any event, to form an opinion on environmental matters - they being best left to people who had specialised knowledge and skills in such spheres. Even if a matter may seem to be preeminently one of public law, the Courts could decline to exercise review because it was felt that the matter was not justiciable, i.e. not suitable to judicial determination. The reason for non - justiciability was that judges were not expert enough deal with the matter. If the court were to consider the validity of reasons or the feasibility of the project, it would be substituting its own views for those of the experts or of the decision maker which, in this instance, was the Central Environment Authority. Under the judicial review procedure, it was not open to the court to substitute its own views for that of the Central Environment Authority which had thought it fit to accept the recommendation of experts who had recommended "Southern Expressway" as the best of all options or schemes. The court could not quash such a decision unless it was characterised by an illegality or was a decision reached in breach of rules of natural justice etc. Decision making was an important aspect of the work entrusted to the Central Environment Authority. Any person endowed with decision making powers would appreciate that discretion was an aid to the exercise of these powers. The court was not of the view that the discretion had been abused in any way by the Central Environment Authority. For the aforesaid reasons the application was dismissed.