The Supreme Court will hear the Minister of Mass Communication and Media, prior to considering the Fundamental Rights violation application filed by Sonic Net Technologies (Pvt) Ltd., for leave to proceed.
The rights violation application was yesterday re-fixed for support on August 1st 2006.
D.S. Wijesinghe P.C, who appeared for the Minister told the court that the Minister of Mass Communications requested a hearing prior to granting leave to proceed with the petition.
The petitioner, Sonic Net Technologies (Pvt) Ltd., of George R. De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 13, had complained to the Supreme Court that, on June 6th, the CID sealed the transmission equipment although the Magistrate had ordered only an inspection of the premises and a report. The seizure of equipment and the sealing of premises had been unwarranted. The petition said the action of the CID was arbitary, and a denial of the petitioner's right to engage in the lawful occupation of choice. The petitioner had over 20,000 customers. The petitioner claimed excessive action by the police who went beyond what was ordered by the Magistrate.
Romesh De Silva P.C., appeared with Sugath Caldera instructed by G.G Arulpragasam for the petitioner.
Deputy Solicitor General Sathya Hettige appeared for the CID officials and the Attorney General.
The Bench comprised Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake, Justice Raja Fernando and Justice Andrew Somawansa.
Among the repondents cited in the petition are U.K Mahindadasa, Chief Inspector of the CID, Chandra Fernando, the IGP and the Attorney General.
By Chitra Weerarathne
The rights violation application was yesterday re-fixed for support on August 1st 2006.
D.S. Wijesinghe P.C, who appeared for the Minister told the court that the Minister of Mass Communications requested a hearing prior to granting leave to proceed with the petition.
The petitioner, Sonic Net Technologies (Pvt) Ltd., of George R. De Silva Mawatha, Colombo 13, had complained to the Supreme Court that, on June 6th, the CID sealed the transmission equipment although the Magistrate had ordered only an inspection of the premises and a report. The seizure of equipment and the sealing of premises had been unwarranted. The petition said the action of the CID was arbitary, and a denial of the petitioner's right to engage in the lawful occupation of choice. The petitioner had over 20,000 customers. The petitioner claimed excessive action by the police who went beyond what was ordered by the Magistrate.
Romesh De Silva P.C., appeared with Sugath Caldera instructed by G.G Arulpragasam for the petitioner.
Deputy Solicitor General Sathya Hettige appeared for the CID officials and the Attorney General.
The Bench comprised Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake, Justice Raja Fernando and Justice Andrew Somawansa.
Among the repondents cited in the petition are U.K Mahindadasa, Chief Inspector of the CID, Chandra Fernando, the IGP and the Attorney General.
By Chitra Weerarathne
1 comment:
I think it's all gone back to the start where things have began.
Now the court says TRC and the Media Ministry to be heard on the August 1st.
This will be a never ending story till CBNSat shuts down. That's the ultimate goal of the people who started this whole scenario.
Even the subscribers too seem to be frustrated now. They even don't care about the money they spent. We can't be wasting our time on this we have 1000 of other things in life.
Interesting to see the page no. 25 of todays Daily news. TRC have put 2 notices with regard to 2 companies which violated the agreement with TRC. Namely the companies are 2 ISP's Lanka Global Online and Pan Lanka. According to the notice these 2 companies were not complying to the TRC regulations from 2002.
I hope TRC would have given notices to them in several occasions and now they have openly given them a time frame to comply with the regulations. Failing to do so TRC will initiate legal action against these companies and probably seal them preventing their business operations.
This is the way TRC has to act if anyone is commiting something against TRC regulations.
I beleive the same should apply to CBNSat and LBN if they have violated anything with regard to the licences they had.
But it was not the same for CBNSat and LBN.
WHY ????
WE ALL KNOW WHY NOW !!!!!!
Post a Comment