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 Member that the petitioner was making an unauthorized construction encroaching on the public road and that a crowd had gathered creating unrest and a possible breach of the peace, the 1st respondent visited the scene. He found an atm osphere of unrest there. The evidence of the 1 st respondent was supported by the Pradeshiya Sabha Member and another witness by their affidavits. he petitione r’s version w hich w as su pplem ent by his petition and a belated statem ent made to a Grama Niladhari was contradictory. He had no
injuries to establish the alleged assault.
a c c o rd in g ly h o ld th a t th e p e titio n e r h a s n o t b e e n su c c e s s fu l in es tab lis h in g th at his fu n d a m e n ta l rights g u a ra n te e d in te rm s of A rticles 11 a n d 1 3 (1 ) of th e C o n stitu tio n h a v e b e e n v io la te d b y th e ac tio n s of th e 1 st re s p o n d e n t. T h is a p p lic a tio n is a c c o rd in g ly d is m is s e d , b u t in all th e c irc u m s ta n c e s of th is c a s e w ith o u t co sts.
