Tag: law points

SIRIMAL AND OTHERS v BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CO-OPERATIVE WHOLESALE ESTABLISHMENT AND OTHERS | 2003 2SLR 23

Editor

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 More

REMOVAL OF OFFICERS (PROCEDURE) ACT, No. 5 OF 2002 ( Sinhala,Tamil, English)

editor

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED FOR THE REMOVAL OF PERSONS APPOINTED TO CERTAIN OFFICES SPECIFIED IN PART II OF THE SCHEDULE TO ARTICLE 41C OF THE CONSTITUTION ; AND TO PROVIDE FOR MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH OR INCIDENTAL THERE TO BE it enacted by the Parliament of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka as follows. read the full act in english read the act in sinhala read the act in tamil 

Read More

ROSHANA MICHAEL v. SALEH, OIC (CRIMES), POLICE STATION, NARAHENPITA AND OTHERS SC (FR) NO. 1/2001

editor

The petiitoner, a visiting domestic servant worked in the house of her employer until 12.15 pm on 03. 12. 2000. At about 6 pm., the employer’s wife (the complainant) observed her husband’s gold wristlet watch missing. She got down the petitioner and questioned her but the wristlet watch was not found. According to the Information Book of the Narahenpita Police Station, the complainant had made a complaint regarding the loss of the wristlet watch on 04. 12. 2000 at 9.10 am.; the 1st respondent (Inspector of Police) and another officer…

Read More

GAMINI DISSANAYAKE (PETITIONER IN SC 4/91) v. M. C. M. KALEEL AND OTHERS | 1993 2SLR 135

Editor

Eight Members of the United National Party who were also members of Parliament singly filed eight petitions bearing numbers SC 4 – 11/91 challenging their expulsion from the Party. The respective petitioners in applications No. SC 5/91 and No. SC 8/91 were Ministers of Cabinet rank in the UNP government shortly before their expulsion. The petitioner in application No. SC 9/91 and the petitioner in application No. SC 10/91 were a State Minister and Project Minister respectively in ttie UNP government shortly before their expulsion. The petitioners have filed their…

Read More

SUBBASH CHANDRA FERNANDO vs KAPILARATNE, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, POLICE STATION, GAMPAHA S.C. APPLICATION NO. 1/91

Editor

The petitioner is a Medical Practitioner with a MBBS degree from the University of Ceylon. He was arrested on 19.07.89 on a complaint that he had assaulted Dr. Gunatilaka, Surgeon, Base Hospital, Gampaha and obstructed the carrying on of the service at the hospital in breach of Regulation and e Emergency Regulations. The complaint against the petitioner was that he had assaulted Dr. Gunatilaka twice on 19.07.89 first’at the path lab, a private medical establishment, and thereafter at the Base Hospital, Gampaha. Although he was arrested for such conduct under…

Read More

RATNAPALA v. DHARMASIRI, HEADQUARTERS INSPECTOR, RATNAPURA AND OTHERS SC APPLICATION 162/91

Editor

respondents had assaulted and brutally tortured the petitioner over a period of three weeks. The injuries suffered by the petitioner were irreparable, particularly in view of the fact that one of his lungs had to be surgically removed. The 1st (Hector Dharmasiri, Headquarters Inspector) and 2nd (I.P. Gunasekera, officer-in-charge), respondents deliberately encouraged, tolerated and acquiesced in the acts of torture and inhuman treatment inflicted on the petitioner on whom the J.M.O. found 26 injuries. Hence the 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th respondents who have been identified by the petitioner along…

Read More

Namasivayan vs Gunawardene the judgement was given by supreme court S. C. APPLICATION NO. 166/86

editor

The petitioner was travelling in a bus at Nawalapitiya when he was arrested by the 3rd respondent. He was not informed the reason for his arrest. He was taken to a security personnel camp and kept there and repeatedly assaulted by the 3rd respondent and other security personnel. He was forced to make a statement on the lines suggested by the 3rd respondent. He was not released after his statement as promised but continued to be kept in unlawful detention. The respondent said the petitioner was arrested because he was…

Read More