SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

RANASINGHE AND ANOTHER VS. CEYLON PETROLEUM STORAGE TERMINALS LTD AND OTHERS


RANASINGHE AND ANOTHER

RANASINGHE AND ANOTHER

Vs.

CEYLON PETROLEUM STORAGE TERMINALS LTD AND OTHERS

SUPREME COURT
ALUWIHARE, J.
DEHIDENIYA, J.
FERNANDO, J.
SC/FR/244/2017
JUNE 13, 2018

Fundamental rights-Article 126(2) of the Constitution-Time bar-Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act, No. 21 of 1996, section 13(1)-Burden of proof

The petitioners alleged that their fundamental rights had been infringed by the respondents' failure to grant the promotions that the petitioners claimed they were duly entitled to. When the matter was taken up for support, a preliminary objection was raised by the respondents that the application had been filed four months and eight days after the alleged violation, and hence was time barred in terms of Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution. The petitioners' position was that they had filed a

complaint with the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRC) prior to coming before the Supreme Court, and that in view of section 13(1) of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act, No. 21 of 1996, time freezes and therefore the application was not time barred. The petitioners also alleged that up to date there had been no formal notifi






































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top