Gamini Dissanayake (Petitio... - Human Rights Commission of Sri ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Gamini Dissanayake (Petitioner In Sc 4/91) V. Kaleel, M.C.M. And Others file:///C:/Documents and Settings/kapilan/My Documents/Google Talk ... 70. Pearlberg v. Varty [1972] 1 WLR 534, 547. 71. Ex p. Parker [1953] 1 WLR 1150. 72. Buckoke v. Greater London Council [1971] Ch 655. 73. R v. Hull Prison Visitors ex p. St Germain [1979] QB 425. 74. General Medical Council v. Spackman [1943] AC 627, 644. 75. White v. Redfern [1879) 5 QBD 15. 76. R v. Davey [1899] 2 QB 301. 77. John v. Rees [1970] Ch. 345, 402; [1969] 2 WLR 1294, 1332, 1333, 1335. 78. Heatley v. Tasmanian Racing (etc) Commission (1977) 137 CLR 487. 79. R v. Secretary of State for the Environment ex p. Brent LBC [1983] 3 All ER 321, 354. 80. A. G. of Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu [1983] 2 All ER 346, 350. 81. O' Reilly v. Mackman [1982] 3 All ER 1124, 1126, 1127. 82. Civil Service Unions Case [1985] AC 374. 83. Cinnamond v. British Airports Authority [1980] 2 All ER 368, 374. 84. Malloch v. Aberdeen corporation [1971] 2 All ER 1278, 1283, 1294, 1297, 1298. 85. Maradana Mosque v. Mahmud (1966) 68 NLR 217, 224. 86. Gaiman v. National Association for Mental Health [1970] 2 All ER 362, 374, 376, 381. 87. Secretary of State for Trade v. Hoffman - La Roche [1973] 3 All ER 945. 88. Ward v. Bradford Corporation [1971] 115 SJ 606; [1971] 70 LG.R 27. 89. Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HLC 759. 90. R v. Sussex Justices [1924] 1 KB 256. 91. Hannam v. Bradford City Council [1970] 2 All ER 690, 694, 700. 92. Eckersley v. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board [1894] 2 QB 667.' 93. R v. Essex Justices [1927] 2 KB 475. 94. R v. Camborne Justices [1954] 2 All ER 850. 95. R v. Nailsworth Justices [1953] 1 WLR 1046. 97. Simon v. Commissioner of National Housing (1972) 75 NLR 471. 98. Law v. Chartered Institute of Patent Agents [1919] 2 Ch. 276, 290. 99. Metropolitan Properties v. Lannon [1968] 3 All ER 304, 310, 314. 100. R v. Leicestershire Fire Authority Ex. p. Thompson (1978) 77 LGR 373, 379. 104. Frome United Breweries v. Bath Justices [1926] AC 586. 6 of 56 4/20/2011 1:18 PM
Gamini Dissanayake (Petitioner In Sc 4/91) V. Kaleel, M.C.M. And Others file:///C:/Documents and Settings/kapilan/My Documents/Google Talk ... 105. R v. Hendon Rural District Council [1933] 2 KB 696. 106. R v. Altrincham Justices Ex p. Pennington [1975] 2 All ER 78, 82. 107. Roebuck v. National Union of Mineworkers [1973] 1 LGR 676. 108. Young v. Fife Regional Council (1986) S.L.T. 331, 334. (same as No. 3) 109. Blackpool Corporation v. Locker [1948] 1 All ER 85. 110. Ruth v. Clerk (1890) 25 QBD 391. 111. Yapa Abeywardena v. Harsha Abeywardena SC 51/87 (SPL) SC Minutes of 18.01.1988. 112. Rati Lal v. State of Bombay AIR 1954 SC 388. 113. Calder v. Bull (1798) 3 US 386, 399. APPLICATION under and in terms of Article 99 (13) (a) of the Constitution , challenging expulsion from the United National Party. H. L. De Silva, PC, M. L. M. Ameen, PC, Neville De J. Seneviratne, R. K. W. Goonesekera, E D. Wickramanayake, Ranjan Gooneratne, S. L. Gunesekera, Gomin Dayasiri, Neil Dias, Ranjith Fernando, Mahendra Amarasekera, Dhamsiri Fonseka, T. M. S. Nanayakkara, S. T. Jayanaga, Nigel Hatch, Upul Jayasooriya, Mangala Ranaraia, Nalin Dissanayake, Ian Fernando and H. B. Maddumabanda for Petitioners in all eight applications. K. N. Choksy, P.C., S.C. Crosette - Thambiah, Daya Pelpola, S. J. Mohideen, D. H. N. Jayamaha, Lalith W. Jayawickrema, A. L. Brito - Mutunayagam, Ronald Perera and Lakshman Ranasinghe for 1 to 4 respondents in all eight applications. No appearance for the 5th respondent. December 03, 1991. FERNANDO, J. 142 Cur. adv. vult. Eight Members of Parliament applied to this Court, by petitions in terms of Article 99 (13) (a) of the Constitution, challenging their expulsion from the United National Party (" the Party "), a recognized political party. The questions of fact and law involved are, except in one respect, identical, and the parties agreed that all eight petitions be heard and determined together. It was further agreed that the facts were not seriously in dispute, and that any contested question of fact should be determined on the basis of the several affidavits filed, without the need for oral evidence or cross examination of deponents. 1. THE FACTS In late August 1991 a sudden crisis occurred in the Party, when it became known that notice had been given of a resolution in terms of Article 38 (2) (a) of the Constitution by more than one-half of the whole number of Members of Parliament. The petitioners have produced a copy of this notice ; it is undated, does not contain the names, signatures or initials of the signatories, and is not authenticated in any way ; the Respondents have not denied that it is indeed a copy of the notice, and so I accept it as a correct copy. The requisite number of signatures could not have been obtained unless Party Members also were included. The eight Petitioners admittedly signed this notice ; when, we have not been told. It is said that forty Party Members signed, but subsequently (after 28.8.91) some claimed that they had not signed, or had signed through mistake or misrepresentation, and others withdrew or revoked their signatures. However, it is unnecessary for me to decide any of these intriguing questions as to the number of signatories, the validity of the signatures and of the notice itself, and the entertainment of the notice by the Speaker. It is clear that this notice was the result of a secret campaign for some time prior to August 1991 by Opposition Members of Parliament, the Petitioners, and some other Government Members. It is also admitted that although the notice refers to serious criticisms of the President's conduct from the inception of his period of office, at no stage had the Petitioners expressed any criticism or dissent whatsoever, either publicly or within the inner councils 7 of 56 4/20/2011 1:18 PM 143
Page 1 and 2: Gamini Dissanayake (Petitioner In S
Page 5: Gamini Dissanayake (Petitioner In S

Gamini Dissanayake (Petitio... - Human Rights Commission of Sri ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?