Palitha v. O.I.C., Police Station, Polonnaruwa and Others
O.I.C., POLICE STATION, POLONNARUWA AND OTHERS
KULATUNGA, J., RAMANATHAN, J.,
AND WIJETUNGA, J.
SC APPLICATION NO. 880/92.
MAY 04, 1993.
Fundamental Rights – Constitution, Articles 13 (1) and (2) – Dismissal ofapplication induced by wrong information – Inherent power of Court to vacatedismissal.
The petitioner's application was dismissed on wrong facts given by therespondents to the prejudice of the petitioner.
The Court has inherent power to set aside its order by way of remedying theinjustice caused to the petitioner and grant relief.
Cases referred to:
Wijeyesinghe v. Uluwita 34 NLR p. 362 at p. 364.
Ganeshanathan v. Goonewardena  1 Sri LR p. 319 at p. 329.
APPLICATION for relief for infringement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed byArticle 13 of the Constitution.
Petitioner absent and unrepresented.
S. Rajaratnam, S.C. for respondents.
May 04, 1993.
On 12.02.1993 this application was dismissed, on the Court beinginformed by the State Counsel that the petitioner was due to bereleased on 30.04.1993, after rehabilitation. However, due to atypographical error, the order made by this Court stated that thepetitioner had been so released on 30.04.1992.
Sri Lanka Law Reports
 1 SriL.R.
Subsequently the Commissioner-General of Rehabilitation, by letterdated 02.04.1993, informed this Court that the petitioner had notbeen sent for rehabilitation but he was still in detention atthe Pelawatta Detention Camp. According to the letter of theCommissioner-General of Rehabilitation, this communication wasmade in consequence of a request by M. G. Jinadasa, the fatherof the petitioner, to release the petitioner.
State Counsel now confirms that the petitioner was not sentfor rehabilitation even after the Attorney-General had, on 19.02.1993,communicated to the 3rd respondent the fact that the Court hadbeen informed that the petitioner was due to be rehabilitated. Thiscommunication had been dispatched by registered post.
State Counsel states that the petitioner has since been releaseddirectly from the Pelawatta Detention Camp on 30.04.1993.
Considering the fact that the order of this Court dated 12.02.1993was made on wrong facts given to the prejudice of the petitioner,we set aside the said order by way of remedying the injustice causedto the petitioner (notwithstanding the failure of his Counsel to appearin Court though noticed, which failure appears to be due to the shortnotice given to him) – vide Wijeyesinghe v. Uluwita, (1) andGaneshanantham v. Goonewardene (2), on the inherent power ofCourts to set aside such orders.
On the merits, we find that the petitioner was 22 years of ageat the time of his arrest. The petitioner states that he was carryingon an occupation as a mechanic. He has been in detentionfrom 08.11.1989.
The respondents have not filed any objection to this application.
We grant the petitioner a declaration that his rights under Articles13 (2) and (4) have been infringed, and direct the State to pay asum of Rupees seventeen thousand five hundred (Rs. 17,500) to thepetitioner as compensation.
It is hoped that in future this Court will not be furnishedwith incorrect information as happened in this case. Counselrepresenting the respondents are cautioned to obtain written
Elasinghe v. Wijewickrema and Others
confirmation of information given to them by the respondents. TheRegistrar is directed to forward copies of this order to the 3rd and4th respondents for appropriate action in that regard.
RAMANATHAN, J. – I agree.WIJETUNGA, J. – I agree.
Case restored and relief granted.