Sri Lanka Law Reports
 1 Sri L.R.
ATUKORALE AND OTHERSV.
T.P.F. DE SILVA – I.G.P. AND OTHERS
DHEERARATNE, J. ANDWADUGODAPITIYA, J.
S.C. APPLICATION NO. 137/95(F/R).
29 FEBRUARY AND 02 MAY 1996.
Fundamental Rights – Constitution Articles 12(1), 12(2), 14(1) (a) and 14(1)(b) – Police Ordinance sections 77(1), 77(3), 78(1) – Refusal to allow U.N.P.May Day rally at the Kandy Central Bus Stand – Discrimination.
The Petitioners' request to use the Kandy Bus Stand which means the Cen-tral Bus Stand, and for a procession to be conducted from the MahaiyawaPlayground along Trinco Street, Ward Street, Clock Tower and upto thevenue of the meeting for their U.N.P. May Day rally was refused by the 1stRespondent on the ground of security, logistical and administrative andimperative constraints. The 1 st Respondent failed to explain what was im-plied by the grounds stated. The 1st Respondent offered the Colombo GalleFace Green and the Bogambara Car Park as alternative venues which thePetitioners refused to accept. At the same time, permission to four otherpolitical parties which are constituent parties of the Peoples Alliance (PA) tohold processions and meetings on May Day of the same year was granted,the Ceylon Workers Congress led by S. Thondaman, Minister of Rural De-velopment in Bandarawela, the Ceylon National Workers Congress led byMr. M.S. Sellasamy Chairman, Silk and Allied Products Authority in Hatton,the Kandurata Janatha Peramuna led by Mr. P. Chandrasekeram, DeputyMinister of Housing and Public Utilities in Nuwara-Eliya and the Red FlagOrganisation of the Communist Party in Matara. This was alleged to bediscriminative of the U.N.P. which was the major opposition party to the P.A.
The 1st Respondent however offered the "parking area" of the BogambaraGrounds (not the Bogambara Grounds) but he was silent as to why thesecurity situation and logistical problems had no application to the parkingarea of the Bogambara Grounds. Further it appeared that 1st Respondentwas saying that the governing criteria in permitting the four other parties theuse of Bandarawela, Hatton, Nuwara-Eliya and Matara were most certainlynot security or logistical or administrative imperatives, but as ‘they haddone so for a long period of time and these celebrations had a virtual geo-graphical base over the years, whereas the major political parties with larger
Gamini Atukorale and Others v. De Sihra-IGP and Others
followings always had their May Day celebrations in the ‘City* (presumblyColombo).
In terms of section 77(1) of the Police Ordinance what is required is thatat least six hours notice must be given of a proposed procession. Contraryto what 1st Respondent says the law does not require any formal applica-tion to be made to anyone. And in fact an application or what amounts to ithad been made.
In terms of section 77(3) of the Police Ordinance the 1st Respondentcould have prohibited the procession'in the interests of the preservation ofpublic order' but no such ground was urged by the 1st Respondent.
Section 78(1) of the Police Ordinance empowers the Police as occasionrequires to direct the conduct of assemblies and processions in any publicplace and to prescribe the routes such processions should take. There is nooccasion for the police to offer alternative venues for such meetings.
There has been a violation of the Petitioners right to equality before thelaw (Article 12(1) of the Constitution) and they have been discriminatedagainst on the ground of their political opinion (Article 12(2) of the Constitu-tion).
Inasmuch as the Petitioners were unreasonably and without validgrounds refused permission to hold their meeting and procession in Kandy,thus preventing the petitioners from holding their May Day meeting andprocession on 1.5.95, there has thus been a violation of the Petitioners'entitlement to the freedom of speech and expression (Article 14(1) (a) andalso a violation of their entitlement to the freedom of peaceful assembly(Article 14(1) (b) of the Constitution).
APPLICATION for relief for violation of Fundamental Rights.
C. Seneviratne P.C. with Paul Perera P.C., Daya Pelpola, D.H.N. Jayamaha,and Ronald Perera for the Petitioners.
Upawansa Yapa P.C. Additional Solictor-General with Miss. H. JayasunderaS.C. for the Respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
Sri Lanka Law Reports
 1 Sri L.R.
August 01, 1996.
The 1st Petitioner in this case is, inter alia, the General Secretaryof the United National Party (UNP) which is a recognised political party;the 2nd Petitioner is the General Secretary of the Jathika SevakaSangamaya (JSS); the 3rd Petitioner is the Administrative Secretaryof the Lanka Jathika Estate Workers Union (LJEWU), and the 4th Peti-tioner is the Secretary of the National Public Services Trade UnionFederation (NPSTUF).
They allege violations of fundamental rights enshrined in Articles12(1), 12(2), 14(1) (a) and 14(1) (b) of the Constitution.
Leave to proceed has been granted to the petitioners as prayedfor, but only in their capacities as persons and/or citizens of Sri Lanka.
The Petitioners state that the Working Committee of the UnitedNational Party (hereinafter referred to as the UNP) decided to hold itsMay Day Procession and Meeting for the year 1995 in Kandy, and thatin consequence of such decision, the Coordinating Secretary to theChairman of the UNP, by letter dated 17.3.95 (P1) invited the 3rd Re-spondent the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kandy, to a meetingon 25.3.95 to discuss the necessary arrangements.The 3rd Respond-ent did not attend. Thereafter by letter dated 30.3.95(P2), addressedto the 1st Respondent, the Inspector General of Police, the Secretaryof the U.N.P. Kandy District Organisation requested permission to holdthe UNP May Day Celebration in Kandy. The letter also intimated tothe 1 st Respondent the fact that the large crowd which was expectedwould be proceeding to the venue of the meeting in processions. Theexact details would be intimated later. By letter dated 3.4.95(P3), the1 st Petitioner informed the 1 st Respondent that the venue for the 1995UNP May Day celebrations was to be the Kandy Town Bus Stand andthat the Kandy Municipal Council had unanimously decided to makethe bus stand available for the said purpose. The 1st Petitioner wantedthis fact conveyed to the 3rd Respondent and also the fact that he wasapplying for the necessary permit for the use of a loud speaker. On thesame day, a second letter (P4) was sent by the 1st Petitioner to the1 st Respondent stating that a meeting of the UNP May Day Organisa-
Atukorale and Others v. De Silva-IGP and Others
tion Committee was scheduled for 8.4.95 at 10.00 a.m. and requestingthe 1 st Respondent to direct the 3rd Respondent or his representativeto be present for the reason that 'police participation and advice inrelation to security arrangements and traffic arrangements' were im-portant. The 1st Respondent replied by letter dated 5.4.95 (P5) refer-ring to the application to hold the 1995 May Day Rally in Kandy andrefusing permission stating that, 'It is regretted that approval cannotbe given to this application. As a matter of practice, over the years,with very few exceptions, May Day Rallies have been confined to theColombo area for all political parties. The reasons are security,logistical, and administrative imperatives.
I shall be thankful therefore if this matter can be discussed withD.I.G. Colombo to arrange for a suitable venue for the UNP May DayRally to be held in Colombo.*
On 18.4.95, the 1st Respondent again wrote to the 1st Petitioner(letter P7) referring to his letter refusing permission (marked P5) andrequesting that the holding of the May Day Rally in Colombo be dis-cussed with the D.I.G., Colombo in order to finalise arrangements torthe holding of the Rally in Colombo. On the following day (19.4.95) theSecretary (Legal) of the UNP replied to the 1st Respondent by lettermarked P8 stating that in consequence of what transpired in the courseof a debate in Parliament, the UNP was 'going ahead with preparationsfor holding the May Day Celebrations, consisting of a meeting andprocession in Kandy", and requesting an opportunity to discuss thedetails as early as possible.
In reply to P8, the 1st Respondent wrote to the 1st Petitioner on
(P9) stating: 'It is possible to consider a reduced scale of MayDay Celebrations, confined to only a public meeting, without demon-strations etc., to be held in Kandy." This letter P9 further requests the1 st Petitioner to work out the details with the Senior Superintendent ofPolice, Kandy.
Thereafter, the 1st Respondent again wrote to the 1st Petitionerletter dated 25.4.95 (P10) referring to a meeting held that very morningattended by the 1 st Petitioner, the 3rd Respondent, SSP Kandy, andSP Kandy. It appears that the 1st Respondent chaired the meeting.
Sri Lanka Law Reports
 1 Sri LR.
The letter sets out that, 'From the discussion we had today, it is clearthat your specific application is for the following :-
a public meeting at the Kandy Bus Stand which means CentralBus Stand,
for a procession to be conducted from Mahaiyawa Playground,along Trinco Street, Ward Street, Clock Tower and the venue ofthe meeting.*
The letter goes on to say that, 'our position would be clearly, hav-ing regard to the above considerations (viz. the security situation andother logistical problems) to permit the holding of a public meeting onMay Day at Bogambara Grounds in the parking area. A Municipal per-mit is available for this purpose. No Municipal Permit has been ten-dered in respect of the proposed meeting at Kandy Central Bus Stand
I regret that no procession permit can be grantedI would
wish to inform you that a meeting for May Day to be held at ColomboGalle Face Green, with a procession to commence from SugathadasaStadium, proceeding on the route taken in earlier years could yet beoffered, if you agree.”
This letter P10, is the final communication by the 1 st Respondenton the matter; the position according to which is as follows :-
that the 'specific application’ of the Petitioners was:
to hold a public meeting at the Kandy Central Bus Stand,and
to conduct a procession along the stated route;
that permission for both these requests was refused by the1st Respondent;
that as an alternative the 1 st Respondent would permit onlythe holding of a public meeting in the parking area at the BogambaraGrounds, for which purpose a Municipal permit was available (i.e.without a procession); and
Atukorale and Others v. De Sitva-tGP and Others
that the 1st Respondent was still offering an alternative venue,viz: Galle Face Green, Colombo, with the procession, as in formeryears, commencing from the Sugathadasa Stadium.
The Petitioners have countered the several matters set out abovein the following wayMeeting the allegation of the lack of a MunicipalPermit, the petitioners state that the Kandy Municipal Council after itsunanimous decision on 31.3.95 (P11) had in fact given permission byits letter dated 4.4.95 (P12) for the use of the Kandy Bus Stand for themeeting. Secondly the Petitioners aver that there are no grounds tosuggest that the security situation in Kandy was serious and statefurther that although the 1 st Respondent offered Colombo as an alter-nate venue, the fact was that, at the relevant time a state of emer-gency had been declared in respect of Colombo, but not in respect ofKandy or any other part of the country. The Petitioners have producedmarked P13(a) to P13 (i), copies of newspaper articles from 20.4.95 to26.4.95, which speak of security alerts in Colombo and proposed plansof terrorists to attack May Day rallies in the city of Colombo.They alsoaver that the route for the UNP procession offered by the 1 st Respond-ent was the selfsame one where a former President of Sri Lanka wasassassinated by a terrorist bomb whilst leading the UNP May Dayprocession in 1993, and also, that in October 1994, the PresidentialCandidate of the UNP was himself killed, also by a terrorist bomb at aspot not far away. They state therefore that, by all accounts, Kandywas a safer place than Colombo, and that in fact, fewer police officerswould have been required to man the route in Kandy as proposed bythem, than would be required to man the route in Colombo as sug-gested by the 1st Respondent.
The Petitioners next make the accusation that the 1 st Respondenthas in fact given permission to four other political parties, which areconstituent parties of the Peoples Alliance, to hold processions andmeetings on May Day of the same year, as follows :
the Ceylon Workers Congress led by Mr. S.Thondaman, Min-ister of Rural Development – in Bandarawela;
the Ceylon National Workers Congress led by Mr. M.S.Sellasamy, Chairman, Silk and Allied Products Authority in Hatton;
Sri Lanka Law Reports
 1 Sri L.R.
the Kandurata Janatha Peramuna led by Mr. P.Chandrasekeram, Deputy Minister of Housing and Public Utilities- in Nuwara Eliya, and
the Red Flag Organisation of the Communist Party – in Matara.
In conclusion, the Petitioners state that the order of the 1st Re-spondent contained in letter P10, referred to above, was arbitrary, ca-pricious, malicious and discriminatory and was designed to preventthe petitioners and/or the UNP and its affiliated Trade Unions from ex-ercising their legitimate political and fundamental rights.
Learned President's Counsel for the Petitioners strenuously urgedthat, although the 1 st Respondent was constantly referring to security,logistical and administrative constraints and imperatives as reasonsfor refusing permission, he had nowhere explained as to what thosewords implied; nor has he given any indication of what they actuallyconstituted in relation to the Petitioners' request, and that, therefore,this court had no opportunity of examining them and arriving at a deci-sion in regard to their reasonableness or otherwise. Learned Counselalso urged, that the fact that others were given permission to hold theirMay Day processions and meetings in outstation towns likeBandarawela, Hatton, Nuwara Eliya and Matara as aforesaid, whilstthe Petitioners were refused such permission in respect of Kandy, con-stituted a serious act of discrimination against the Petitioners.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further complains that by of-fering permission to use the car park of the Bogambara Grounds, Kandyfor their May Day Rally, the 1st Respondent ensured that the UNPrally will not be held in Kandy, as he knew full well that such car parkwas wholly unsuitable for the purpose and would therefore be rejectedas a possible venue.
The Petitioners say that as a result, the fundamental rights guar-anteed to them under Articles 12(1), 12(2), 14(1 )(a) and 14(1 )(b) of theConstitution have been violated.
The 2nd Respondent has been added as a party to these proceed-ings as he made certain comments with reference to this matter in the
Atukorale and Others v. De Silva-IGP and Others
course of a debate in Parliament. Although the 2nd Respondent is theDeputy Minister of Defence, under whose purview the Police Depart-ment comes, he plays no part in either granting or refusing permissionunder the provisions of the Police Ordinance, for the holding of publicprocessions. In any event he has filed an affidavit stating, inter alia,that the speech he made in Parliament was "for the purpose of invitingthe Petitioners for further discussions on the question of the venue forthe proposed 1995 UNP May Day Celebrations."
In these circumstances, Learned President’s Counsel for the Peti-tioners did not press his case as against the 2nd Respondent, butstrenuously urged that the 1 st Respondent had been guilty of violatingthe fundamental rights of the Petitioners.
The 1st Respondent has filed a detailed affidavit replying to theseveral averments of the Petitioners, and the 3rd Respondent has fol-lowed suit with an affidavit generally supportive of that of the 1st Re-spondent.
The chief points urged by the 1st Respondent are :
that no formal application was made by the UNP for permis-sion;
that permission was refused for security, logistical and admin-istrative imperatives;
that he (the 1 st Respondent) offered the Petitioners the city ofColombo as an alternative venue to Kandy, for both the meetingand the procession;
that, in any event, he offered the Bogambara Grounds, Kandy,as an alternative venue to the Kandy Central Bus Stand, if suchUNP meeting would be held on a reduced scale, confined only toa public meeting without demonstrations, and
that the other four rallies were allowed to be held inBandarawela, Hatton, Nuwara Eliya and Matara because they hadacquired a virtual geographical base over the years.
Sri Lanka Law Reports
 1 Sri L.R.
It may be useful at this point to consider the provisions of thePolice Ordinance (Cap.65) in terms of which the permission soughtwould be granted.
Section 77(1) states:
"No procession shall be taken out or held in any public place inany urban area, unless notice of such procession has, at leastsix hours before the time of the commencement of such proces-sion, been given to the Officer-in-charge of the police station near-est to the place at which the procession is to commence.
Section 77(3) states:
"Notwithstanding anything in any other law, an officer of police ofa rank not below the grade of Assistant Superintendent, if heconsiders it expedient so to do in the interests of the preserva-tion of public order, may give directions (whether orally or inwriting) prohibiting the taking out of any procession, or imposingupon the person or persons organising or taking part in the pro-cession such conditions as appear to him to be necessary, in-cluding conditions prohibiting or restricting the display of flags,banners or emblems."
Section 78(1) states:
"Officers of Police not below the grade of Sub-Inspector may, asoccasion requires, direct the conduct of all assemblies andprocessions in any public place, prescribe the routes by whichand the times at which such processions may pass, and di-rect all crowds of twelve or more persons to disperse when theyhave reason to apprehend any breach of the peace"
It appears therefore that in terms of section 77(1) of the PoliceOrdinance, what is required is that at least six hours notice must begiven of a proposed procession. Contrary to what the 1st Respondentsays, the law does not require any "formal application" to be made toanyone. In any event, it seems evident that the several requests madeby the Petitioners have been accepted and acknowledged by the 1st
Atukorale and Others v. De Silva-IGP and Others
Respondent as constituting an application and that the 1st Respond-ent has himself proceeded on that footing in dealing with the Petition-ers. This is amply illustrated by the correspondence referred to above.Even in his letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence dated 31.3.95produced by him marked 1R3, the 1 st Respondent says, "I attach heretoan application made by the United National Party to hold their annualMay Day Celebrations including the conduct of a procession atKandy,"In any event, if the 1 st Respondent felt that there was no com-pliance with any supposed legal requirement of a formal application,he had only to say so, instead of acting as he did and even going to theextent of offering an alternative venue. I feel therefore that not only isthis a mere afterthought, but is a requirement imposed by the 1st Re-spondent which is not warranted by law.
Secondly, in terms of section 77(3), the 1st Respondent could haveprohibited the procession "in the interests of the preservation of publicorder." No such ground is urged by the 1st Respondent for refusingpermission. Instead, his position is that permission was refused forsecurity, logistical and administrative imperatives. As submitted bylearned President's Counsel for the Petitioners, no one knows whatthey are, and the 1st Respondent has made no attempt to either saywhat they are, or give any particulars of what they constitute or entail.On the contrary, in paragraph 19(c) of his affidavit, the 1st Respondentcalls them "obvious security, logistical and administrative constraints."The Petitioners quite rightly say that it is the 1st Respondent who hasfull knowledge of what they are and it is upto him to give all necessarydetails to enable this court to determine whether there was sufficientmaterial to justify the 1st Respondent's refusal.They further state thatthe only conclusion that can be arrived at from the 1st Respondent’sfailure to explain himself, is that his action was arbitrary, capriciousand mala fide. The Petitioners add that the 1st Respondent's refusal toallow the procession on such grounds, sans explanation, amounted tohis abusing his powers. In any event, it was in Colombo and not inKandy that a state of emergency had been declared.
Thirdly, section 78(1) empowers the Police as occasion requires,to direct the conduct of assemblies and processions in any public placeand to prescribe the routes such processions should take.There is nooccasion for the police to offer alternate venues for such meetings.
Sri Lanka Law Reports
 1 Sri L.R.
This notwithstanding the 1 st Respondent says that he offered thePetitioners an alternative venue, viz – Galle Face Green, Colombo, andalso offered the former route used by the UNP commencing fromSugathadasa Stadium, for the procession. I have already dealt withthe submissions of the Petitioners in this regard. The Petitioners' sub-mit further that the 1st Respondent "cannot dictate to political partieswhere they should have their political rallies or meetings,"nor suggestthat they should hold them on a "reduced scale". They say that thesesuggestions were not done bona fide but with an ulterior motive. In anyevent, for some unexplained reason, the 1st Respondent says in hisaffidavit, "Considering the logistical, security and administrative con-straints in relation to a full scale May Day rally in an area other than inColombo as contemplated by the UNP, I was of the view that such anevent, if held, anywhere else other than in the metropolis would pose asecurity threat particularly under the situation prevailing then in thecountry."
No substantiation of this is given by the 1st Respondent in theteeth of the Petitioners' position that Kandy was safer than Colombo.
Whilst on this point it may be enlightening to refer to letter marked1R3 produced by the 1 st Respondent himself. Letter 1R3 was writtenby the 1st Respondent to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence. The firstparagraph of this letter has been referred to already.The second para-graph reads thus:
"As a matter of policy these festivities (i.e. May Day Celebra-tions) have been confined to Colombo. The reasons are security andlogistics. Exceptions have been made rarely over the years. It is there-fore necessary to have a policy directive for the conduct of May DayFestivities including processions. The regulation of their venue needto be determined.
An appropriate directive may please be issued."
This letter speaks for itself, and needless to say, did not attract areply. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners merely submitted that 1R3revealed the 1st Respondent's thinking.
Atukorate and Others v. De Sitva-IGP and Others
Fourthly, the 1st Respondent pleads in his affidavit that as thePetitioners wanted Kandy as their venue, he offered them the BogambaraGrounds as an alternative to the Kandy Central Bus Stand to hold theirmeeting. This, as the Petitioners rightly point out, is not the truth. Whatthe 1st Respondent offered by his letter P10, referred to above, wasnot the Bogambara Grounds but the “parking area" of the BogambaraGrounds. Further, the 1st Respondent says in his affidavit that this hedid "having regard to the security situation and logistical problems."Besides there being no particulars of what these terms constitute, the1 st Respondent is silent as to why the "security situation and logisticalproblems" have no application to the parking area of the BogambaraGrounds. In any event, the Petitioners state that the car park wasoffered knowing that it will not be accepted.
Lastly, the 1st Respondent pleads that he did not discriminateagainst the Petitioners. In paragraph 19(e) of his affidavit he says :
"Specifically denying the allegation of discrimination, I emphati-cally state that at the meeting I had with the petitioners on 25.4.1995,
I explained to them the position as regards the Ceylon Workers Con-gress, the Ceylon National Workers Congress, the Kandurata JanathaPeramuna and the Red Flag Organisation of the Communist Party andtheir being permitted to hold their May Day celebrations in the prov-inces, as they has done so for a long period of time and these celebra-tions had acquired a virtual geographical base over the years whilstthe major political parties in the country which had a larger followinghad always had their May Day Celebrations in the city wherein therequisite security, logistical and administrative infrastructure was avail-able. In the circumstances, I state that permitting these smaller par-ties to continue to have their May Day Celebrations in the provincesdid not constitute unequal treatment of the Petitioners."
Going further, the 1st Respondent states in paragraph 21 of hisaffidavit :
"I categorically deny the averments that the Petitioners are simi-larly circumstanced as the Ceylon Workers Congress, the CeylonNational Workers Congress, the Kandurata Janatha Peramuna andthe Red Flag Organisation of the Communist Party."
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[199611 Sri L.R.
Besides merely so stating, the 1st Respondent does not go on toexplain why and how. The 1st Respondent does not explain where thedissimilarities, if any, lay. No facts or figures are given to substantiatehis position. On the contrary it appears that "security, logistical andadministrative imperatives" played no part in Bandarawela, Hatton,Nuwara Eliya and Matara. Whereas they were of paramount importancein Kandy. Further, what the 1st Respondent seems to say is that,whereas the governing criteria in refusing Kandy as the venue weresecurity, logistical and administrative imperatives, the governing crite-ria in permitting the four other parties the use of Bandarawela, Hatton,Nuwara Eliya and Matara as venues were most certainly not security,or logistical or administrative imperatives, but, (i) as "they had doneso for a long period of time" and (ii) as "these celebrations had ac-quired a virtual geographical base over the years,“whereas the majorpolitical parties with larger followings always had their May Day Cel-ebrations in the "city" (presumably Colombo).
By a strange process of reasoning the 1 st Respondent states thatin the circumstances, "permitting these smaller parties to continue tohave their May Day Celebrations in the provinces did not constituteunequal treatment of the Petitioners."
It is not possible to agree with either the reasoning or the conclu-sion of the 1st Respondent. On the other hand, it is clear that therehas been discrimination and unequal treatment. The Petitioners urgethat the reason for such discrimination was political, inasmuch as thefour parties which were given permission to hold their meetings andprocessions in the provinces were all constituent parties of the Peo-ples Alliance, whilst they (the Petitioners) belonged to the UNP whichconstituted the opposition.
Upon a careful consideration of all the facts of this case, I holdthat there has been a violation of the Petitioners' right to equality be-fore the law (Article 12(1) of the Constitution) and that they have beendiscriminated against on the ground of their political opinion (Article12(2) of the Constitution). I
I further hold that, inasmuch as the Petitioners were unreasonablyand without valid grounds refused permission to hold their meeting and
Atukorale and Others v. de Silva-IGP and Others
procession in Kandy; thus preventing the petitioners from holding theirMay Day meeting and procession on 1.5.95, there has been a violationof the Petitioners entitlement to the freedom of speech and expression(Article 14(1) (a) and also a violation of their entitlement to the free-dom of peaceful assembly (Article 14(1) (b) of the Constitution).
Since it appears that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents did not have adirect hand in the above violations, no findings are made against them.I however hold that the 1 st Respondent is responsible for all the viola-tions abovementioned.
I therefore hold and declare that the 1 st Respondent has violatedthe fundamental rights of the Petitioners enshrined in Articles 12(1),12(2), 14(1) (a) and 14(1) (b) of the Constitution, and accordingly quashthe determination and/or order made by the 1 st Respondent on 25.4.95refusing the Petitioners permission to hold their 1995 May Day meet-ing and procession in Kandy as requested by them. I
I also make order that each of the four Petitioners be paid a sum ofRs.5000/- as costs by the State.
AMERASINGHE, J. -1 agree.
DHEERARATNE, J.-1 agree.
ATUKORALE AND OTHERS V. T. P. F. DE SILVA – I. G. P. AND OTHERS