The Petitioner in his Petition dated 02.08.2010 stated that on or about November 2009 he commenced employment in the “Mangalika Oil Mill” owned by Rukman Narasinghe of Karukkuwa, Madampe situated at Galahitiyawa, Madampe as a Machine Operator (Labourer). The Petitioner averred that his residence was situated approximately 400 Meters away from the aforesaid Oil Mill premises, and that his usual working hours at the Oil Mill were from 7.00 a.m. To 5.30 p.m. The Petitioner stated thatthere were 12 labourers inclusive of himself, and one Supervisor. Hence as the Petitioner…
Read MoreCategory: Judgements
Ishantha Kalansooriya vs Karunaratne and others SC FR Application No. 112/2010
On 24.01.2010 at or about 10.30 pm, the Petitioner was travelling on a pillion of a motor bike ridden by his friend Nanayakkara Masachchige Nalin Dayanga (Nalin) and were travelling along Galle-Baddegama road. While he was travelling in front of Meepawala Karunanyake’s house Sarath Kalansooriya (“Sarath”)gave a call to him to inquire about a matter involving one of his friends The Petitioner stated that he had a friendly conversation with Sarath to resolve a minor dispute regarding a verbal abuse which had taken place between Somasiri Madanayake and Sarath. The…
Read MoreC. A. Piyadasa vs Mahinda Balasooriya S.C. (FR) No.629/2010
The Petitioner alleges that in the early hours of 15th October, 2010 he opened the door of his residence in response to a sound of someone knocking at the door and had seen three persons outside his door and one had inquired whether he is “Podiputha Mudalali”. When he answered in the affirmative they had introduced themselves as officers from the Matugama Police. Having ordered the Petitioner to get into a three-wheeler, he had been driven some distance and ordered that he get off the vehicle. The Petitioner alleges that…
Read MoreRathnasiri Fernando vs Police Sergeant Dayarathna and others SC (F/R) Application Vs. No: 514/2010
On 09-08-2010 at around 3.30pm, when the Petitioner was at his place of work, the 1st and 2nd Respondents clad in civil had come on a motor bike and asked for toddy. The Petitioner has said he did not have toddy for sale. The Petitioner alleged that the 1st and the 2nd Respondents smelt of liquor at that time. The 1st and 2nd Respondents insisted that they be given a bottle of toddy and when the Petitioner indicated he does not have toddy, the 1st and 2nd Respondents have threatened…
Read MoreChaminda Sampath Kumara vs Sub Inspector Salwatura, and others SC FR Application No. 244 / 2010
Chaminda Sampath Kumara was 31 yrs. He was a labourer. He has had no previous conviction of any offence or even a complaint against him prior to the incident which is the basis of the case in hand. He has come before this court complaining about his arrest by the Police and how much of physical and mental pain he had to go through until he was produced before the Magistrate. He has sought relief in respect of violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed by and under the Constitution. This…
Read MoreYohan Indika Herath vs Ajith and other police officers. S.C. [F/R] No. 555/2009
The events that preceded this application as alleged by the Petitioner are that, on the 20th of June 2009 the Petitioner’s brother, one Herath Mudiyanselage Dilan Mahesh Herath organized a musical show in the Dummalasuriya Public Playground from 8:00pm to 10:00pm.The Petitioner was a member of the organizing committee of the event and alleges that uponthe conclusion of the event he, along with two other friends, namely; Sooriya Mudiyanselage Niroshana Mahesh Kumar and Herasinghe Hettiarachchige Anil Indika, left and walked towards his vehicle. It is at this juncture that he…
Read MoreHapugodage Jagath Perera vs. Gothami Ranasinghe and other police officers SC/FR 1006/2009
The Petitioner who is running a business called Ranga Sweet has employed several employees one of whom is Asanka Sanjaya Kumara. On 17.11.2009 he accompanied Asanka Sanjaya Kumara to Mirigama Police Station as the said person had been noticed to appear at the Police Station for an inquiry on a complaint made by the wife of Asanka Sanjaya Kumara who was living inseparation from her husband. It has to be noted here that the Petitioner had not been noticed by Mirigama Police Station but he went to the Police Station…
Read MoreNandani Kumari, vs Padma Kumari Ekanayak and others SC /FR/ Application No 599/2009
The Petitioner who is a housewife, was married to one S.M. Abeyrathne a graduate teacher, and was 45 years of age and a mother of 3 children, at the time the alleged incident referred to in the petition was taken place. According to the Petitioner, an incident had taken place near her house on 27th June 2008 around 2.00 pm with one Padma Kumari Ekanayake when she was trying to dispose the garbage which was collected near her house, which ended up by the said Padma Kumari assaulting the Petitioner…
Read MoreSUNIL SHANTHA and others vs SUB-INSPECTOR SENEVIRATNE and others SC (FR) Application 479/2009
The two petitioners filed this fundamental rights application complaining that the 1st,2nd and 3rd respondents arrested the petitioners without a warrant and without any reasonable basis, wrongfully detained the petitioners and subjected them to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The petitioners also complained that the 1st and 3rd respondents failed to afford the petitioners their right to equal protection under the law. The petitioners stated that, thereby, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents have violated the petitioners’ rights guaranteed by Articles 11, 13 (1), 13 (2) and 12…
Read MoreW.N.L.K.Fernando vs Police Inspector Ranjith and others S.C.F.R.Application No.612/09
”Petitioner then states that he was assaulted, arrested and detained unlawfully by the 1st to 4th respondents. Accordingly, he alleges that his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 11, 12 (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2)3 were violated by the 1st to 4th Respondents. However, having heard the parties, this Court on 09.09.2011 granted leave to proceed, only with the application for the alleged violation of the rights guaranteed in terms of Articles 11 and 13(1) of the Constitution;”. read full judgment>>
Read More