Fundamental Rights, Article 12(1) Constitution, School Admission, Arbitrary Decision, Lease Agreement, Deed of Gift, Chief Occupant Status, Unreasonableness and Arbitrariness

-

Headnote drawn by "GALLELAWBLOGGER"

Rajapaksha Mudiyanselage Amarananda Rajapaksha v. Principal of Richmond College, Galle

Fundamental Rights, Article 12(1) Constitution, School Admission, Arbitrary Decision, Lease Agreement, Deed of Gift, Chief Occupant Status, Unreasonableness and Arbitrariness

The Petitioner, acting on behalf of his son, Rajapaksha Mudiyanselage Janula Uthsara Rajapaksha, sought admission for his son to Grade 1 at Richmond College, Galle. The Petitioner had submitted documents, including a lease agreement, a deed of gift, and a special power of attorney, to demonstrate that he had been the "chief occupant" of a residence, a requirement for school admission. However, the 1st Respondent, the Principal and Chairman of the Appeal Board, rejected the documents and struck off the Petitioner's son's marks based on the argument that the Petitioner's residence had changed, thus disqualifying him under the Chief Occupant category.

The Petitioner contested this decision, arguing that the 1st Respondent had acted arbitrarily and failed to consider the full context of the legal documents submitted. Specifically, the Deed of Gift and the Power of Attorney confirmed that although the property had been gifted to the Petitioner's son, the Petitioner's father retained life interest and had the authority to lease out the property.

Held (Wijesundera J., Wengappuli J., De Silva J. concurring):

1.  The 1st Respondent's decision to reject the Petitioner's application and strike off his son's marks was arbitrary and unreasonable, violating the fundamental right to equality under Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

2.  The Petitioner had established, through the lease agreement, deed of gift, and special power of attorney, that he had been the chief occupant of the residence since 2015.

3.  The 1st Respondent failed to reasonably and objectively consider the documents provided, which clearly demonstrated the Petitioner's eligibility for the Chief Occupant category.

4.  The decision to exclude the Petitioner’s documents and disqualify his son was a violation of the equality principle, which prohibits arbitrariness in administrative decisions.

Application allowed. The 1st Respondent directed to admit Rajapaksha Mudiyanselage Janula Uthsara Rajapaksha to Grade 1 at Richmond College, Galle. The court did not issue an order regarding the costs.

READ JUDGMENT - CLICK

 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

constructive trust - synopsys of a presentation

-
Image
  TRUST - A presentation -  October 29, 2016 786 GALLELAW BLOGGER   [ many authorities cited in this document have been hyperlinked by the blogger to save the precious time of the reader]     "Constructive trust serves as the guardian of the oppressed when the rigidity of written law hinders the pursuit of justice. It embodies the flexibility and moral conscience of the legal system, ensuring that equity prevails where legal technicalities may fall short. By recognizing the rightful claims of those unjustly deprived, constructive trust provides a path to fairness and restores balance, offering hope and remedy to those wronged by the limitations of formal law." - GALLELAWBLOGGER     October 29, 2016   TRUST – synopsis of a presentation made to the District Judges on 24.8.2002 by A W A Salam at the auditorium of the Office of Judicial Service Commission presided over by Justices Udalagama Director of SLJI  ...
Read more

EQUITY SAVES A MAN AND HIS RESIDENCIAL HOUSE- CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST SUPREME COURT RECENT JUDGMENT ARJUNA OBEYSEKERA J

-
Image
  The plaintiff sued the 1st and 2nd Defendants for a declaration of title to the subject matter of the action and ejectment of a landed property. In the amended answer, the 2nd defendant admitted the execution of several deeds affecting the subject matter including one in favour of Odayan Kureishan, but claimed that Kureishan, the 1st defendant, and subsequently the plaintiff, came to hold the property in trust for him [ the 2nd Defendand]​​  The main issue was whether the beneficial interest in the property had been transferred to Odayan Kureishan or if the property was being held in trust for the 2nd  defendant by Kureishan, the 1st defendant, and subsequently the plaintiff. Essentially, the court had to determine if these transactions were actual sales or just loans with the second defendant still owning the property.  The District Court decided that the beneficial interest in the property had not been transferred to Odayan Kureishan. The court held that the prop...
Read more

some selected

-
Image
  Terms of Service · Privacy · Content Policy All Blogs MANAGE GALLELAW BLOGGER 1 minute ago PEIRIS AND ANOTHER v. PERERA AND ANOTHER Sri Lanka Law Reports 2002 - Volume 2 , Page No - 128 *PEIRIS AND ANOTHER v. PERERA AND ANOTHER* *(The blogger's understanding of the judgment is summarized as follows)* *CLICK ON ME* The defendants filed a petition seeking permission to appeal against the orders issued by the District Judge on January 19 and January 24, 2001. They also requested a stay of proceedings in DC Panadura case No. 2794/spl. Initially, the court granted a stay order on January 31, 2001, but later refused to extend it on April 6, 2001, as the dispute involved a right of way. The situation arose from the following facts: The District Judge, through his o...  read more GALLELAW BLOGGER 5 days ago Having exercised jurisdiction the Magistrate is not permitted to revisit the question of breach of peace. The Magistrate is clothed with the jurisdiction to ent...
Read more