The petitioner joined Air Lanka as a Cadet Pilot on 10.06.84. He left the country on 22.12.87 with a view to employment with Gull Air having applied on 19.12.87 (or 03 years no pay leave. Leave however was refused. On 04.02.88 the petitioner returned and on 22.02.88 applied to be rostered for duty. This was not allowed. Air Lanka by letter dated 06.05.88 informed petitioner that he had vacated post. The petitioner’s position was that he had only prospected for foreign employment and he had made a separate application for…
Read MoreAuthor: Editor
WIJAYASIRIWARDENE v. KUMARA, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANDY AND TWO OTHERS | 1989 2SLR 312
The petitioner, a 16 year student of St. Paul’s College, Kandy had been served a pamphlet directing him to get the students of his school on the streets throughout the week oh pain of death. The petitioner attended the school the following day and found no students in his classroom but the students of the school were congregating in various places and demonstrating and shouting slogans within the precincts of the school. …
Read MoreSASANASIRITISSA THERO AND OTHERS v. P.A. DE SILVA, CHIEF INSPECTOR, C.I.D. AND OTHERS | 1989 2SLR 356
Fundamental Rights – Mala tide arrest and detention tor political reasons – Articles 12(1), 12(2), 13(1), 13(2) and 14(1) of the Constitution – Time-base At the Katana Mahapola celebration held at Harischandra Vidyalaya a bomb explosion took place to disrupt the procession and two hand grenades were thrown – one of which struck a student and rolled on to the ground without exploding a few yards from the Hon. Amarasiri, Minister of Trade and Hon. Wijayapala Mendis, Minister of Textile Industries (5th respondent) and the others exploded causing injuries to…
Read MoreWELIGODAPOLA v. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WOMEN’S AFFAIRS AND TEACHING HOSPITALS AND OTHERS | 1989 2SLR 63
The law recognizes that the principles of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application’for all persons who are not, by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position. What is required is that persons who by nature, attainment or circumstances are similar are treated alike. If there is a classification which deals alike with those who are similarly situated, someone who is different cannot be allowed to complain that he has not been treated equally; for being different, he must necessarily expect to be treated differently.…
Read MoreAMAL SUDATH SILVA v. KODITUWAKKU, INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND OTHERS | 1987 2SLR 119
The petitioner has established that he has been subjected to torture and cruel treatment by the Police whoever they be, despite doubts about the exact identification of the particular Police Officers, when he was under arrest. The police force is an organ of the State. The State is liable to pay compensation to the victim. Per Atukorale, J. ‘The report of the M.O. is in my view, valueless and unworthy of acceptance. On his own showing it is evident that he has not carried out an independent examination of the…
Read MoreROBERTS AND ANOTHER v. RATNAYAKE AND OTHERS |1986 2SLR 36
The second petitioner, the Sri Lankan wife of the 1 st petitioner a foreigner, held tenancies of 3 stalls and two bare land leases from the Kandy Municipal Council at the Jathika Pola, Tomlin Park. Kandy where she carried on several businesses including that of a cafe. The petitioners complain they have been the victims of a relentless and unceasing series of attempts to deprive the 2nd petitioner of her tenancies and destroy her business by improper…
Read MorePREMALAL PERERA VS WEERASOORIYA | 1985 3SLR 177
The petitioner an employee of the Government Railway Department complained that a circular authorising the deduction of a contribution from him to the National Security Fund in the absence of objection by him infringes {1) his Fundamental Right of freedom of thought, conscience and freedom (Article 10, 14(1) (e) of the Constitution) because the money is to be used to buy arms and weapons which will be employed in the destruction of human life and violence which is repugnant to the tenets of the Buddhist faith and belief which he…
Read MoreJAYANETTI v. THE LAND REFORM COMMISSION AND OTHERS |1984 2SLR 172
The petitioner had made an application to the Land Reform Commission (1st respondent) to purchase 50 acres out of Mount Pearl Estate an agricultural land and annexed to it a letter of recommendation from the then Member of Parliament the 6th added respondent as this was an administrative requirement for such an application. By letter dated 4th March 1982 the Regional Director of the Commission informed the petitioner that the request could not be granted because the Member of Parliament had withdrawn his recommendation owing to strong objection raised by…
Read MoreVELMURUGU v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOTHER |1981 1SLR 406
The petitioner a member of the District Development Council for Amparai was prevented by army officers when travelling in a car with 3 others to go to the 4th Colony. He was stopped at the junction on the 4th colony and obliged to turn back and go back towards Kalmunai.On the way he apparently received various complaints of houses being burnt and assault. The petitioner put down the 3 persons who were in his car and proceeded back again towards the 4th Colony. On the way he met Fr. Elmo…
Read MoreAIYATHURAI THADCHANAMOORTHI ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OTHERS VADIVEL MAHENTHIRAN V. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OTHERS |1978 1SLR 154
The applicants in both applications had petitioned this Court under Article 126 of the Constitution of an infringement of a fundamental right by executive or administrative action. They alleged in their petitions that the acts, complained of constituted a violaton of the guarantee afforded to them in terms of Article 11 of the Constitution. (As both applications were similar in nature, in that both petitioners had alleged a violation of Article 11 of the Constitution, and as the officers against whom the allegations were made were the Inspector of Police…
Read More