2026-02-05 / Questions by Private Notice: CEB Reforms and Puttalam-Eluvankulam-Mannar Road 2026-02-05
## Summary
Hon. K. Kader Masthan raised the closure of the Puttalam–Eluvankulam–Mannar Road (B379), a gazetted RDA-maintained national highway, which had resumed public transport use in 2010 before being halted in June 2019 and subsequently closed following a Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) undertaking given during Supreme Court proceedings. The member argued that the DWC exceeded its authority by unilaterally closing an RDA road without a court order banning public transport, and alleged that officials misled the President at a December 2025 District Coordinating Committee meeting by falsely stating no public transport had operated on the road since 1980. He posed four formal questions challenging the legal basis for the DWC's decision, the jurisdictional authority of the DWC over an RDA road, and the adequacy of public consultation given the road's significance to hundreds of thousands of residents. He called on the Government to reopen the road for public use in the absence of any judicial prohibition, tabling supporting documents including a journal entry dated 17 September 2023.
Opening of Puttalam–Eluvankulam–Mannar Road (B379) for Public Transport
Hon. Speaker, thank you for permitting me to raise this under Standing Order 27(2).
The Puttalam–Eluvankulam–Mannar Road, designated B379 by Gazette in 1989 and placed under the Road Development Authority (RDA), historically served as a key North–South route. After displacements in the 1990s, transport resumed in 2010, reducing travel distance between Colombo and Jaffna by about 80 km. Although a case was filed in the Supreme Court urging stoppage citing wildlife disturbance, no court ban was imposed, and transport continued until June 2019. Later, transport was halted citing damage to the bridge at the 37th kilometre; however, crossings occurred during temple and church festivals. Elsewhere, roads through large wilderness (e.g., Habarana junction roads, Ampara–Siyambalanduwa) function without bans and with no proven harm to wildlife.
In August last year, the case was taken up and the Department of Wildlife Conservation stated it would not allow public transport through this road. Based on that assurance, the petitioners withdrew the case and it was concluded. However, respondents 4 and 9 to 21 remained silent about the subsequent decision to completely close the road and let down the public depending on them. This raises serious concerns.
I table relevant documents and ask:
1. At the Puttalam District Coordinating Committee meeting chaired by the Hon. President on 13.12.2025, is it not clear the President was misled by officials stating that no public transport occurred after 1980 and that the related case had been concluded?
2. As B379 is maintained by the RDA and forms part of the national highway network, can the Department of Wildlife Conservation decide to stop public transport on it?
3. In a case ongoing for about 15 years, how can the Department of Wildlife Conservation, a key national department, act so abruptly on a road used by people for centuries, disregarding public needs?
4. Without any court order banning public transport, can the Government now take appropriate steps—considering the future development of this vast region and the transport needs of hundreds of thousands of people—to reopen this road for public use?
I also table the journal entry dated 17.09.2023 and request it be included in the Hansard.
Placed in the Library.