The petitioner who was in Grade l-l of the Sri Lanka Principals’ Service was not eligible to apply for the post of Principal of Sir Razick Fareed Maha Vidyaiaya. Flowever, with the support of the Provincial Chief Minister of the Uva Province, he first became Principal of Liyanagahawela Tamil Vidyaiaya for which he was not eligible and thereafter by deceit and with the support of the Provincial Ministry of Education he obtained an appointment as Principal of Razick Fareed Maha Vidyaiaya. When the 05th respondent the Provincial Director of Education,…
Read MoreTag: human rights
NANDASENA VS CH AN D R AD ASA, O. I. C., PO LICE STATION, HINIDUMA AND OTHERS SC (SPL) APPLICATIO N No. 12/2004
T he p e titioner com plained that the 1st respondent O IC cam e near his boutique in a jeep; and after sum m oning him assaulted him on his face. He was then taken to the police station by other police officers. He com plained of infringem ent of A rticles 11 and 13(1) of the Constitution. He alleged that a part of his boutique had been dem olished. It was proved that on inform ation received by the 1st respondent over the telephone, from a Pradeshiya Sabha…
Read MoreLama Hewage Lal DECEASED 1. Wewalage Rani Fernando (wife of the deceased) 2. Lama Hewage Janaka, 3. Lama Hewage Sampath 4. Lama Hewage Malsha Nadeeshani (Minor children of the deceased, appearing through their mother) Wewalage Rani Fernando (Guardian an-Litem) All of No. 90/1, Medawatte, Seeduwa South, Seeduwa PETITIONERS vs. 1. Officer – in – Charge, Minor Offences, Seeduwa Police Station, Seeduwa. 2. Officer – in –Charge, Police Station, Seeduwa. 3. Ratnayake, Officer – in – Charge, Negombo Prison, Negombo. 4. The Chief Jailer, Negombo Prison, Negombo. 5. Superintendent of Prison, Negombo Prison, Negombo. 6. Inspector of General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Colombo-1 7. Commissioner General of Prison, |
This is an application filed by the wife and three minor children of one Lama Hewage Lal who was arrested by the officials of the Seeduwa Police Station. Subsequently he had died whilst in the custody of the Negombo Prison Officials. The Petitioners alleged that the said Lama Hewage Lal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) died as a result of torture while in detention and therefore at a time when he was deprived of his personal liberty. They have prayed for a declaration that the deceased’s fundamental rights guaranteed…
Read MoreSRI THAMINDA, DHARSHANE AND MAHALEKAM v INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND OTHERS SC FR 463/464/465/03
The petitioners allege violations of Articles, 11 and 13(1) by certain officers. They complain that they were arrested without justification and were brutally assaulted, and further contend that, they were subjected to torture or to cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in violation of Article 11. The respondents contended that the petitioners were under the influence of liquor and when the 3rd petitioner was requested to move his three wheeler away, the petitioners had attacked the respondents and the Police Constable who had sustained injuries had to be hospitalised,…
Read MoreGuneththige Misilin Nona, Akkara Heththedeka, vs Muthubanda (10312), Police Constable Moragahahena Police Station, Moragahahena. Maheepala, Officer in Charge, S.C. (F/R) No. 429/2003
The 1st and the 2nd Petitioners are respectively the mother and sister of the deceased Thisera Sunil Hemachandra who died on 26th July 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), while allegedly in Police custody. The deceased was a Sri Lankan citizen and 32 years of age at the time of his death. The 1st Respondent was a Police constable attached to the Police Station at the time of the death of the deceased. The 2nd Respondent is the Officer in Charge of the Police Station. The 3rd Respondent is…
Read MoreRATNAYAKE AND ANOTHER vs MEDIWAKA, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KANDY AND OTHERS S. C (FR) 231/2003
The petitoners were owners of Hotel “Sunray’’ Kandy and complained to the Police and the court that on 10.04.2003 they had invited about 30 persons to celebrate an award which their son had received from Trinity College. While they were awaiting the arrival of guests, some of whom had arrived, about 30 persons dressed in camouflage uniform arrived with T-56 rifles and entered the hotel and searched it. The 2nd and 3rd respondents who were police officers attached to the Kandy Police were there. They showed a search warrant. The…
Read MoreSARJUN v KAMALDEEN AND TWO OTHERS SC FR 559/03
The petitioner and 3 others were transporting household furniture in their lorry, from Colombo to Katuwana. As they reached Habarana at night, he decided to spend the night at Habarana and parked the lorry on the side of the road. The petitioner had a permit to transport obtained under the Forest Ordinance, although a permit was not necessary.The petitioner claims that he obtained same out of an abundance of caution valid from 1 p.m. on 18.9.03 to 12 noon 19.9.03. Later in the night the 1st respondent came up to…
Read MoreSARJUN v KAMALDEEN AND TWO OTHERS, by supreme court. SC FR 559/03
The petitioner and 3 others were transporting household furniture in their lorry, from Colombo to Katuwana. As they reached Habarana at night, he decided to spend the night at Habarana and parked the lorry on the side of the road. The petitioner had a permit to transport obtained under the Forest Ordinance, although a permit was not necessary The petitioner claims that he obtained same out of an abundance of caution valid from 1 p.m. on 18.9.03 to 12 noon 19.9.03. Later in the night the 1st respondent came up…
Read MoreSIRIMAL AND OTHERS v BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CO-OPERATIVE WHOLESALE ESTABLISHMENT AND OTHERS | 2003 2SLR 23
The petitioners complained that the 1st respondent (‘The CWE”) did in violation of their rights under Article 12(1) of the Constitution stopped extension of their services beyond 55 years and purported to retire them from 31.7.2002, by circular dated 21.6.2002(P6). The previous circular dated 14.11.1995(P5) provided for granting of annual extension from 55 until 60 as in the case of the public sector under Chapter V section 5 of the Establishments Code. The reasons given for the new policy decision were: (a) Redundant labour force (b) Heavy losses; and (c)…
Read MoreADHIKARY AND ANOTHER v AMARASINGHE AND OTHERS | 2003 1SLR 270
The 1 st petitioner an attorney-at-law was proceeding in his car from Nawala to the Bandaranaike International Conference Hall (BMICH) with his wife the 2nd petitioner and his child and the mother to attend an exhibition. At Narahenpita there was traffic block. When the vehicles started moving the 1st and 2nd respondents came up to petitioner’s car and pulled the petitioner out and abused him and stopped him. When the 2nd petitioner intervened they abused her also and slapped her. When the 1st petitioner disclosed that he was an attorney-at-law…
Read More