Swiss expatriates lament to SC house being occupied by TID

By S.S. Selvanayagam

The Supreme Court on Friday (13) re-fixed for argument on 8 June the fundamental rights petition of two expatriate Sri Lankans who are residents of Switzerland complaining of the alleged unlawful occupation of their own premises at Wellawatte by the officers of the Terrorist Investigation Department.

The Bench comprising Justices Saleem Marsoof, P.A. Ratnayake and Sathya Hettige re-fixed the argument sequent to the move by the Deputy Solicitor General.

Deputy Solicitor General Shavindra Fernando appearing for the Attorney General submitted that the Counter Affidavit of the Petitioners’ Power of Attorney Holder that had been filed in this case received by him only last week.

He told Court that he did not have time to obtain further instruction in this matter and moved to re-fix the argument.

Valarmathy Sundaralingam, who is the Power of Attorney Holder for the Petitioners Shanmugam Sivarajah and Sivarajah Sarojini Devi in her Counter Affidavit stated that it was she who on behalf of the Petitioners paid for the electricity and water supply which was utilised by the officers of the TID who are occupying the premises in question at the time of instituting this application.

However, consequent to the same, the Respondent TID had obtained separate electricity and water connections to the said premises, she added.

But still the Petitioners through her are compelled to pay for the electricity for the water pump which pumps water to all the floors of the said premises where about 16 female officers of the TID are occupying the premises and therefore the electricity bill is substantial, she complained.

She stated one Sivapragasam Vijayanesan who was the cousin of the 2nd Petitioner Sarojini Devi who facilitated the purchase on behalf of the Petitioner and initially who was in occupation of the said property after the purchase.

She added the Petitioner Sivarajah left the country as a refugee due to the conditions prevailed in the country and contended it is not necessary for the purchaser to be present at the time of execution and the buyer is not required to sign the Deed.

She stressed only the Vendor and the two witnesses should sign a Deed of Transfer before the Notary and in the presence of one another at the same time.

She averred the said Vijayanesan had looked after the premises on behalf of the Petitioners not as the Power of Attorney Holder of the Petitioners but as the cousin of the 2nd Petitioner.

She reiterates there is no law requiring a person holding a property on behalf of another to have a Power of Attorney.

She states the said Vijayanesan was entrusted with the said property on trust and he acted on the petitioners’ behalf on entering in to agreements with person for the lease of the house informally namely to the Centre for Health. Later said Vijayanesan had migrated to Australian in 2008.

She alleged the first Respondent the OIC of the TID had attempted to wrongly give a twist to the Petitioners’ absence when the Deed was attested when in law, the Petitioners’ presence was not required.

She points out it is mysterious as to how the 1st Respondent OIC and his officers would conclude that the said property had been used to commit offences and/or illegal activities and then take action to release the employees who were arrested from the said Centre who would have been part of the said illegal activities.

She maintains in fact the said employees were never charged for any offence that clearly indicates there were no such illegal activities. She complains after having released the employees of the Centre for Healthcare, it is irrational to seize the said property.

The female officers of the TID commenced occupying the said premises on 26 July 2009 and the purported order made by the Defence Minister was made in December 2009 and the same had been communicated to the IGP only on 28 December 2009, she points out.

The OIC of the TID have failed to explain the manner in which the said female officers were authorised to lodge in the said premises and if it was done under authority, there would have been some form of documentation authorising them to occupy, she alleges.

She state she lives in the said premises with her elderly relative and his younger daughter. Although the first floor is occupied by female police officers, on occasion men visit the premises even at night and whereby they are compelled to keep the gates of the said premises opened even in night.

Both parties had earlier informed Court that they were attempting to settle the matter and the Court granted time for settlement.

The Court had granted leave to proceed with this rights petition for the alleged infringement of their fundamental right to equality.

Saliya Peiris instructed by Gowry Shangary Thavarasha appeared for the Petitioners who cited Officer-in-Charge, Director, DIG, Inspector Abdeen, another officer Subair of TID as well as IGP, Defence Secretary and the Attorney General as Respondents.

Petitioners complained as a result of the alleged unlawful occupation, they are suffering financial losses since they are required to pay for the utilities for the said premises including electricity and water which is being consumed by the officers of the TID.

They alleged it is a gross violation of their rights for State officers to utilise their property forcefully and without lawful authority.