LUMBINI DE SILVA
V.
1. CONTROLLER, IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
2. SENIOR AUTHORIZING OFFICER, IMMIGRATION AND
EMIGRATION OFFICE 
 
 

SUPREME COURT J
NIHAL JAYASINGHE, J.
TILAKAWARDANE, J.
MARSOOF.P.C.I J.
SC FR 109/2007
OCTOBER 17, 2007 

Constitution - Article 12(1) - Preventing party leaving Sri Lanka to sit for Examination - Name allegedly in the stop list-Conduct of Public Officers - Who could detain passengers leaving the country? Court order necessary?

The petitioner a Medical Practitioner was invited to sit a professional examination in Singapore. The Immigration Officer refused to permit her to travel since there was a direction from the 1st respondent, and her name was in the stop list. She was requested to meet the 1st respondent who stated that he will take steps to remove her name from the stop list She rescheduled her flight for the next day. Once again she was prevented from boarding the flight as her name was still in the list - but was permitted to proceed only to Singapore
 

and was told that, her name would be re-entered In the stop list on her return. She was late for the examination by 15 minutes.

It was contended by the respondent, that her name was placed in the stop list on a complaint by her husband that she would remove their child.

Held:

(1) It is apparent that she was not travelling with her child and no particulars of the child were entered in her passport.

Per Nihal Jayasinghe, J

"It appears so easy for any designing individual to prevent any passenger from leaving this country by just sending a letter or a petition or a telephone call that the passenger should not be allowed to leave this country If this is the manner in which the public servants behave we dread to think of the plight of the passengers who report at the Airport for all legitimate purposes".

(2) They had no authority to detain passengers from leaving the country unless there was an order from a Competent Court concerned in committing a cognizable offence. There was absolutely no reason that warranted the detention of the petitioner because there was no criminal record associated with her.

Per Nihal Jayaslnghe, J

"We want to place on record in the strongest possible terms at our command the abhorrence with which the 1st and 2nd respondents conducted themselves. The inconvenience and the hardships suffered by the petitioner cannot be quantified by payment of compensation."

Application under Article 126 of the Constitution .

Upul Kumarapperuma with Suranga Marasinghe for petitioner.
Shanaka Wijesinghe , SSC for the respondent

Cur. adv. vult .

October 17 , 2007
Nihal Jayasingha, J.

The Petitioner a Medical Practitioner by profession was invited by letter dated 20.06.2006 to sit the Australian Institute of Medical Scientists Professional Examination, on successful completion of which the Petitioner

would be classified as Medical Scientist The said letter was marked and produced P2.

The Petitioner consequently applied to sit the examination on 26th July, 2006 and made the required payment of 300 Dollars. Consequently the Petitioner received a letter dated 29th January, 2007 from the British Council of Singapore, informing her that the examination would to be held at the British Council in Singapore on the 8th of March, 2007. The Petitioner thereafter made arrangements to depart for Singapore on the day prior to the scheduled date of examination so that she could present herself for the examination the next date. She purchased the ticket on Singapore Airlines flights No. SQ 469 which was scheduled to depart from the Bandaranayake International Airport at 1.10 a.m. on the 07th of March, 2007. The Petitioner accordingly arrived at the Bandaranayake International Airport on th March at 11.00 p.m. and after having completed the Customs and ticketing formalities, proceeded to the Immigration with her Boarding Pass for Immigration cl