Counsel faults petition for misrepresentation

Monday, 5 September 2016 00:05 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

By S.S.Selvanayagam

Counsel Upul Jayasuriya appearing for the Minister D.M.Swaminathan in the fundamental rights petition challenging the purported contract to build 65,000 houses in the North, on 31 August called the attention of the Supreme Court that there are lot of misrepresentation and falsehood in the Petition and also brought to the notice of the court that there is no decision by the Cabinet of Ministers as well.

He contended the petition has been filed with speculation and based on Facebook and told the Court they filed action for contempt of Court. He submitted that there are lot of people living in Polythene sheds and because of the petition, the process is being delayed.

Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Rajaratnam submitted that no decision has been made by the Court and the Application is premature.

The Bench comprising Justices Priyasath Dep and Prasanna S. Jayawardane re-fixed the matter to be supported on November 21.

A social activist filed a fundamental rights petition complaining of alleged irregularities and inconsistencies in the contract to build 65,000 houses with an international company.

Petitioner Mohamed Fazl laments that the Chairman of the Cabinet Appointed Negotiation Committee (CANC) for the constructing 65,000 houses for conflict affected families in Northern and Eastern Provinces, the Minister of Prisons Reforms, Rehabilitation, Resettlement and Hindu Affairs D.M.Swaminathan has awarded a contract bypassing procedures and the law.

He cited the Minister, Prime Minister, Members of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Attorney General , Luxembourg based International Company Aracelor Mittal and others as Respondents.

Upul Jayasuriya appeared for Minister D.M.Swaminathan. Sanjeewa Jayawardane PC with Suren de Silva and Jeevan Gunatilake appeared for Arcelor Mittal and its CEO Lakshmi Mittal. Additional Solicitor General Sanjeev Rajaratnam appeared for the AG.

The Petitioner states the refusal and/or denial to the beneficiaries by the Minister or by the other Respondents to disclose information about the plans to accommodate in such houses upon considering their views and consulting experts on suitability of housing intended in the given socio eco economic cultural and environmental context, violates the right to freedom of expression. He is seeking Interim Relief from the Court to direct the Minister to desist from entering into any contract relating to these constructions.

He is seeking the Court to quash the decision by the Minister to grant the contract to the said International Company.