Constitution
of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102–
Ordinarily
the High Court Division under Article l 02 of the Constitution will not
interfere where there is equally effective and efficacious remedy available to
a petitioner. Yet the existence of another remedy is not in every case a bar
to. the exercise of powers of the High Court under Article 102 of the
Constitution and the court can interfere if the circumstances demand such
interference.
Jobon Nahar
and others vs Bangladesh, through the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public
Works Department, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others
49 DLR 108.
Article 102–
The right to
enforce a fundamental right is another fundamental right which gives the petitioner
right to move. this court even though his application was rejected by
Settlement Court on ground of limitation.
Jobon Nahar
and others vs Bangladesh, through the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public
Works Department, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others
49 DLR 108.
Article 102–
Since the
terms and conditions of service of the Government Pleaders and Public
Prosecutors have not been laid down by any statutory provisions, the seeking of
relief under writ jurisdiction regarding relieving of the present petitioner
from the office of the Government Pleader is not called for and as such this
writ petition does not lie.
Kazi
Mokhlesur Rahman vs Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary
Affairs, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others 49 DLR
126.
Article 102–
When all the
terms and conditions are fulfilled and lease deed is registered the legal heirs
of the Jessee are entitled to get their names mutated in the record of rights.
Shawqat Ara
Salahuddin and others vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and
others 49 DLR 467.
Article 102–
Since no
allegation of any misconduct has been alleged in the impugned order, it cannot
be said that the order of removal is arbitrary or malafide or the principle of
natural justice has been violated before passing the impugned order.
Kazi
Mokhlesur Rahman vs Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary
Affairs, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others 49 DLR 126.
Article 102–
Government
is the client and Government Pleaders and the Public Prosecutors are the
lawyers. It is the discretion of the client to keep or change a lawyer
according to its own desire.
Kazi
Mokhlesur Rahman vs Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary
Affairs, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others 49 DLR
126.
Article 102–
In some of
the writ petitions Rule was also issued to show cause why section 4 of the Anti–Corruption
Act, 1957 should not be declared ultra vires of the Constitution but no
argument on that score had been addressed and the same was not pressed. Since
the Rule on that ground was not pressed, the same need not be deal with.
Mustafizur
Rahman and 3 others vs DG, Anti–Corruption and others 49 DLR 599.
Article 102–
In the writ
petition itself the impugned order was not attacked on the ground that fmding
of facts are not based on material evidence. This court will interfere with the
findings of the appellate authority only if the findings of facts are not based
on material evidence.
Minarul
Islam (Md) vs Bangladesh and others 49 DLR 615.
Article 102–
Imposition
of emergency and suspension of fundamental rights for a certain period does not
mean that an Act or Ordinance passed in that period cannot be declared ultra
vires of the Constitution. It was merely the enforcement of fundamental rights
through court that remained suspended for a limited period, and nothing more.
Shahriar
Rashid Khan vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law and
Parliamentary Affairs and others 49 DLR 133.
Article 102–
In spite of
ouster clause in law, this Court has got authority to make judicial scrutiny
and review under its constitutional jurisdiction, if the law is passed or the
thing is done without jurisdiction, coram–non–judice or malafide.
Shahriar
Rashid Khan vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law and
Parliamentary Affairs and others 49 DLR 133.
Article 102–
A vested
right was created in favour of the petitioner to the post of Director General
of Bangladesh Shilpakala Academy and such a right cannot be taken away by
cancelling his contractual service as Principal of Music College as he joined
the College keeping his lien to his service as the Director General. Since his
lien was kept intact and it was never cancelled, he ought to have been allowed
to join his former post as Director General of Bangladesh Shilpakala Academy.
Azad Rahman
vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others 49 DLR 298.
Article 102–
It is true
the petitioner could have filed an application under section 561 A of the CrPC
for quashment of proceedings, but when the impugned proceeding is the outcome
of malafide intention the same is declared to have been initiated without
lawful authority under the Court’s writ jurisdiction.
Manzur Kader
and another vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented
by the Secretary, Ministary of Home Affairs and others 49 DLR 237.
Article 102–
Petitioner
is entitled to challenge the inclusion of her house in the list of abandoned
buildings by way of the Court’s writ jurisdiction in spite of dismissal of her
application by the Court of Settlement on the ground of limitation.
Saleha
Begum, wife of late Altaf Hossain vs Chairman, First Court of Settlement and
another 49 DLR 243.
Article 102–
There is
hardly any scope to apply the principle of equity when terms and conditions of
tender documents are there to provide for legal and proper dispensation.
Ataur Rahman
vs Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Roads and Railway Division,
Bangladesh and others 49 DLR 331.
Article 102–
When the
reviewing authority acted in excess of his power conferred under Regulation
3(4) of the Martial Law Regulation No. I of 1982 the impugned order passed in
reviewing by the CMLA converting the judgment of acquittal into one of
conviction is without any lawful authority.
Abdur Rahman
vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the
Secretry Ministary of Home Affairs, and others 49 DLR 344.
Article 102–
Where an
order of complaint suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction, or raises
question of law and interpretation of a statute, non–compliance with the
alternative remedy of appeal will not be a bar to a writ petition.
Wahidullah
Majumder vs Bangladesh and others 49DLR 400.
Article 102–
A letter
from a Secretary of a Ministry of the Government is not a legal instrument
creating legal rights for the petitioners over an unutilised portion of the
land acquired long ago. It only lays down the policy of the Government without
any force of law and without creating any legal right.
Kazi
Aftabuddin and others vs Bangladesh and others 49 DLR 422.
Article 102–
While
invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court the petitioner is
required to be vigilant and not indolent. Inordinate delay is a good ground for
rejecting a writ petition.
Abdul Hakim
vs Government of Bangladesh and others 49 DLR 438.
Article 102–
When export
registration certificate is cancelled by the Controller of Imports and Exports
under section 4(g) of the Imports and Exports Order on the direction of the
Ministry of Commerce without application of his independent mind application
undere Article 102 is maintainable in the circumstances despite alternative
efficacious remedy.
Acqua Foods
Limited and another vs Controller of Imports and Exports and others 49 DLR 498.
Article 102–
The
respondent in making the demand for payment being short–levied customs duty as
condition precedent for renewal of the licence of the bonded ware–house acted
unjustifiably in that renewal of licence was in no way connected with the
payment of the disputed amount claimed as short–levied customs duty.
Rahima Food
Corporation vs Deputy Collector of Customs and others 49 DLR 510.
Article 102–
Demands from
the petitioner on account of short–levy of customs duty made without serving
show cause notice as to why the amount short–levied at the time of assessment
of customs duty should not be made is not sustainable in law.
Rahima Food
Corporation vs Deputy Collector of Customs and others 49 DLR 510.
Article 102–
The
submission that the Rule is liable to be discharged as the petitioner had not
exhausted the alternative forum, that is statutory appeal, would have received
consideration had the demand been made on substantial compliance of the
provision of the Act.
Rahima Food
Corporation vs Deputy Collector of Customs and others 49 DLR 510.
Article 102–
The Session
Judge· having found the victim girl to be a minor, she is being kept in custody
in the name of judicial custody illegally and entitled to be handed over to the
custody of her father.
Tapati Rani
vs State represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamalpur 49 DLR 566.
Article 102–
Inter
Ministerial Communications are merely policy guidelines in respect of certain
matters concerning the business of the Government. These do not create any
legal right in favour of. any person to ask for return of unutilised land
validly acquired under the law.
Abul Basher being dead his heir Hosne–Ara Begum
and others vs Bangladesh and others 50 DLR (AD) 11.
Article 102–
There is a
strong need to protect the public servant from the propensity of politicisation
of administration by a party Government by keeping the marks for interview as
minimum as possible so that the scope of arbitrariness and the possibility of
pick and choose are absolutely minimised.
Bangladesh,
represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Establishment vs Shafiuddin Ahmed and
2 others 50 DLR (AD) 27.
Article 102–
Normally the
minor children should be with their mother as long as she does not earn any
disqualification for such custody and if there is a breach of this normal order
brought about by a unilateral act of the father or anybody on his behalf, the
aggrieved mother has the right to move the High Court Division under Article I
02 of the Constitution for immediate custody of the children which may be
ordered in the interest and for the welfare of the children.
Abdul Jalil
and others vs Sharon Laity Begum Jalil 50 DLR (AD) 55.
Article 102–
The writ
petitioner appears to have the prima facie liability to pay supplementary
duties as imposed in the Finance Act, 1996, because the disputed increase in
supplementary duty is the issue, not the duty itself.
Commissioner
of Customs, Chittagong vs Giasuddin Chowdhury and another 50 DLR (AD 129.
Article 102–
Lest what
appears to be illegal on first impression turns out to be legal after all, a
Bank Guarantee is a sufficient protection to a taxing authority’s questionable
demand.
Commissioner
of Customs, Chittagong vs Giasuddin Chowdhury and another 50 DLR (AD) 129.
Article 102–
The writ–petitioner’s
claim of assessment on invoice value and not on Yellow Book Value is a matter
of interpretation and not a question of jurisdiction to assess customs duties.
So the writ petitioner has to pay Yellow Book Value before his goods are
released.
Commissioner
of Customs, Chittagong vs Giasuddin Chowdhury 50 DLR (AD) 129.
Article 102–
The writ
petitioner has not been able to make out a case that its own private interest
is so overwhelming that public interest should be subordinated thereto.
Frank
Shipping Limited vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and
others 50 DLR (AD) 140.
Article 102–
If an order
of dismissal was wrongful and the person was treated to be in service by virtue
of a declaration given then he should also be given by way of consequential
relief the salary for the period as if he was actually rendering service. These
are matters which need evidence to be taken and surely cannot be granted in the
summary jurisdiction under Article 102.
Bangladesh,
represented by Secretary, Establishment Division and others vs Mahbubuddin
Ahmed 50 DLR (AD) 154.
Article 102–
There being
no order that the Tribunal had reason to believe that the petitioner had
absconded or was concealing himself and there was no immediate prospect of
arresting him he has made out a case that he had no opportunity of availing the
alternative remedy provided under section 30 of the Act. Mobarak Ali alias
Mobarak Ali Mondal vs People’s Republic of Bangladesh, and others 50 DLR 10.
Article 102–
The presence of alternative remedy does not debar the exercise of jurisdiction
by the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution when the facts
and circumstances of a particular case are such that the accused person had no
reasonable opportunity to avail of the statutory remedy.
Mobarak Ali
alias Mobarak Ali Mondal vs People’s Republic of Bangladesh, and others 50 DLR
10.
Article 102–
Administrative
Circular is not any rule or by–law or regulation which requires publication in
the official gazette. The impugned Circular not being rule or regulation but
merely an Administrative Circular for internal guidance of the promotion
committee to assess the merit of the candidates for promotion the same is an
ordinary document validity of which can be challenged before the Administrative
Tribunal.
Junnur
Rahman vs Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha (BSRS) and others 50 DLR 39.
Article 102–
Judicial
review of the administrative action should be made where there is necessity for
judicial action and obligation. Such action must be taken in public interest.
The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the citizen of the country
receives protection of law and the administrative action comply with the norms
of procedure set for it by laws of the land.
Dr Mohiuddin
Farooque vs Bangladesh, and others 50 DLR 84.
Article 102–
Verification
of the final nomination letters issued by the Establishment Division shows the
inclusion of the name of the writ petitioner and as such he was finally
nominated as ex–Mujibnagar employee who is entitled to be employed.
Abdul Hakim
vs Bangladesh & others 50 DLR J 37.
Article 102–
The Dean of
the Faculty of Medicine being the officer of the University within the meaning
of Article 52 of President’s Order 11 of 1973, the remedy provided under
Article 52 is equally efficacious as it provides for enquiry by a Commission
and as such the writ petition is not maintainable.
Dr Professor
MA Hadi vs Bangladesh and others 50 DLR 218.
Article 102–
When an
offence alleged and conviction thereunder on the facts and circumstances do not
come within the mischief of that offence, the trial is vitiated and the accused
person is entitled to get benefit of that by invoking writ jurisdiction.
Sentu vs
Government of Bangladesh and others 50 DLR 220.
Article 102–
In order to
save the country from being deprived of getting legal and usual customs duties
on the re–conditioned cars and vehicles from abroad and also in order to
protect the interest of the country from the hands of unscrupulous and
dishonest businessmen the Government had to take resort to the policy of
imposing customs duties on the basis of Yellow Book Value. It cannot be said
that such an action is illegal and without jurisdiction, rather we hold that
this is for the greater interest of the country.
Nasiruddin
Ahmed vs Commissioner of Customs, Chittagong and others 50 DLR 232.
Article 102–
Debotter
property in any way cannot be taken over as an enemy property and the same
cannot be put to sale.
Laxmi
Janardhan Jew Thakur and 3 others vs Government of the People’s Republic of
Bangladesh, & ors 50 DLR 273.
Article 102–
If one
Branch of the Department of the Government is not following the lawful order of
the hierarchy of the Governmental authority, definitely the person who is
aggrieved can come before this Court and pray for direction or declaration to
implement, fulfil or obey the lawful order of the Government which the
Administrative Tribunal is not competent to do.
Matiur
Rahman (Md) vs Bangladesh, through the Secretary, Ministry of Establishment of
the People’s Republic of Bangladesh & ors 50 DLR 357.
Article 102–
Finding of fact
that the kabala in question is a product of false personation cannot be
interfered in a petition of certiorari.
Karamat Ali
and others vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh & others 50
DLR 372.
Article 102–
The
Syndicate being an executive authority of the University made nomination for
Selection Board with lawful authority. The University order having provided
remedy by way of appeal from the Syndicate’s order, the writ petition is hit by
the doctrine of exhaustion.
Prof Nurul
Amin Bepari vs ViceChancellor & ors 50 DLR 405.
Article 102–
In taxing
statute the High Court Division by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction as
conferred under Article 102 of the Constitution should not convert it into an
appellate authority where an aggrieved person has got adequate remedy by way of
appeal, review, etc. under the Act itself.
Amjad
Hossain vs Government of Bangladesh and others 50 DLR 458.
Article 102–
When for
breach of a term and a condition of an agreement an action is taken by a party
the remedy lies in a properly constituted suit and not in writ jurisdiction.
Meghna
Vegetable Oil Industries Ltd vs Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral Corporation
(Petro Bangla) and others 50 DLR 474.
Article 102–
Finding
arrived at by the Labour Court being based on consideration of the oral
evidence and the materials placed on record, there is no scope for the
petitioner to reagitate the said contention before this court for reexamination.
Managing
Director, Contiforms Forms Limited and Peasant Trading Cold Storage (Pvt) Ltd
vs Member, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others 50 DLR 476.
Article 102–
A person is
entitled to file an application for enforcement of any of the fundamental
rights only when he is aggrieved by an order or proceeding taken against him by
an authority or person performing any function in connection with the affairs
of the Republic or of a local authority.
Mian Ahmed
Kibria vs Government of Bangladesh and others 50 DLR 496.
Article 102–
The
respondent auction purchaser has suffered for not being able to take delivery
of the goods due to the action of the petitioner. He is therefore entitled to
get cost from the petitioner. The Rule is discharged with cost assessed at Taka
25,000.00 to be paid to the respondent by the petitioner.
Mian Ahmed
Kibria vs Government of Bangladesh and others 50 DLR 496.
Article 102–
The medical
examination shows petitioner Rehana Begum is over 16 and she did not for a
moment want to continue to be detained in the jail custody. She stated that she
was quite capable of taking care of herself. The petitioner be set at liberty
forthwith from this Court.
Rehana Begum
and another vs Government of Bangladesh and others 50 DLR 557.
Article 102–
Where in a
case the petitioner himself denies the allegations that he is a defaulter and
the news published shows that he is a defaulter on the basis of disclosure made
in the Parliament gives rise to a disputed question of fact. Where such dispute
is raised this Court acting under Article 102 does not invoke its power to
resolve the dispute.
Stadmax Ltd
vs General Manager, Credit Information Bureau, Bangladesh Bank & others 50
DLR 594.
Article 102–
Where an
authority is vested with jurisdiction and in exercise of such jurisdiction it
commits mistake such mistake cannot be amenable to judicial review under the
high prerogative writ jurisdiction which the court exercises as discretionary
one.
Abdul Latif
Howlader vs Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) & others 50 DLR 638.
Article 102–
The authority
can never justify an order of preventive detention by merely saying that the
action was taken in the interest of public safety and public order. It has to
satisfy the High Court Division which is an obligation cast upon the Court by
the Constitution, that there were materials on record as would satisfy a
reasonable person to justify the order of detention.
Mostafizur
Rahman vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministary of Home Affairs
and another 51 DLR (AD) 1.
Article 102–
No action
detrimental to the vested right of an individual or corporate body can be taken
except in accordance with law.
Brahmanbaria
Pourashava vs Secretary, Ministry of Land Reforms, Government of Bangladesh and
others 51 DLR (AD) 84.
Article 102–
The High
Court Division appear to have misconstrued and misconceived their jurisdiction
under Article 102 in holding that the writ petition is maintainable, where the
writ petitioner had already availed of the special remedy provided under
section 7 of the Ordinance.
Bangladesh
vs Anwar Ahmed and others 51 DLR (AD) 42.
Article 102–
A writ
petition cannot be founded merely on contract, but when a contract is concluded
the contractor has a legitimate expectation that he will be dealt with fairly.
Managing
Director Dhaka WASA vs Superior Builders and Engineers Ltd 51 DLR (AD) 56.
Article 102–
The
petitioners having accepted the benefit cannot now term the same as illegal.
The High Court Division in exercising writ jurisdiction rightly refused to
exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners as it is unconscionable to
blow hot and cold in the same breath.
Nurul Haque
(Md) and another vs Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh,
represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Railway Division and
others 51 DLR (AD) 140.
Article 102–
The High
Court Division in its writ jurisdiction is not a Court for the recovery of
money and has no jurisdiction to give a direction for payment of a particular
amount of money to the writ–petitioner, unless the amount claimed is both an
admitted amount as well as a statutory payment.
Chairman,
Bangladesh Water Development Board & another vs Shamsul Huq and Co Ltd
& others 51 DLR (AD) 169.
Article 102–
A writ Court
cannot and should not decide any disputed question of fact which requires
evidence to be taken for settlement.
Shamsunnahar
Salam and others vs Mohammad Wahidur Rahman and others 51 DLR (AD) 232.
Article 102–
In order to
maintain a petition as public interest litigation or social action litigation
the petitioner must satisfy the Court that he has sufficient interest and
contribution in the field in espousing the cause of the members of the public.
Nasiruddin
(Md) vs Secretary, Ministry of Local Government & Rural Development and
others 51 DLR (AD) 213.
Article 102–
Where a
contract is entered into by the State and or by a statutory authority for the
performance of statutory duty, any breach of term of such contract is amenable
to judicial review by the High Court Division.
QC Shipping
Limited and another vs Chittagong Port Authority and others 51 DLR 64.
Article 102–
Where a
notice is passed without lawful authority and where the respondents also
realised the rates without any legal sanction for refund of such illegally
realised money it is within the province of the High Court Division to order
writ of mandamus upon the respondents directing refund of money illegally
collected.
QC Shipping
Limited and another vs Chittagong Port Authority and others 51 DLR 64.
Article 102–
Mere
submission of a tender would not create a right in favour of the tenderer to
have his tender accepted unless he has been pushed aside in violation of the
condition of the tender form. To protect a right the right must exist at
present and not in future.
ABM Ruhul
Amin, Managing Director vs Bangladesh Freedom Fighters Welfare Trust and others
51 DLR 208.
Article 102–
Where an
order was passed under Martial Law Order 9 of 1982 the person affected thereby
having had filed review petition before the competent authority has a right to
get review of his grievance and if during pendency of the review petition
Martial Law was withdrawn even then he is entitled to have the review petition
decided by a forum to be created for disposing of the application for review.
Lutfor
Rahman vs Divisional Mechanical Engineer and others 51 DLR 133.
Article 102–
When the
Government proposes to impose a penalty on the delinquent officer, it should
give reasons as to why it differs from the conclusions of the Tribunal, though
even in such a case it is not necessary that the reasons should be detailed or
elaborate.
Golam
Mostafa Miah (Md) vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of
Establishment and others 51 DLR 248.
Article 102–
When a court
exercises jurisdiction which is beyond its territorial limits, that exercise of
jurisdiction is void and the order passed is tainted with coram non–Judice.
Grameen Bank
Karmachari Union vs Member, Labour Appellate Tribunal Dhaka and others 51 DLR
179.
Article 102–
Banking
business of the respondent No. l owned by the Government is not in exercise of
any statutory power and is done by the respondent No. l in the capacity of an
ordinary business organisation and, as such, writ of mandamus does not lie
against the respondent No 1 to enforce an ordinary contract.
Fazlur
Rahman and Co (Pvt) Ltd vs Agrani Bank and others 51 DLR 350.
Article 102–
Court of
Settlement shall consist of a Chairman and two other members who shall be
appointed by the Government.
Secretary,
Ministry of Public Works vs Court of Settlement (1st Court) Bangladesh
Abandoned Building 51 DLR 396.
Article 102–
Writ
Petitioner having not initially taken objection to complying with requirement
under the impugned letter and having rather obtained extension of time for
complying with the same is liable to be saddled with heavy cost for
unnecessarily harassing the respondents and stalling the enquiry against him by
obtaining Rule and order of stay.
Khurshid
Alam vs Securities and Exchange Commission and others 51DLR534.
Article 102–
It was
absolutely unnecessary to comment on the petitioner’s title to and possession
of land in a manner favourable to the writ petitioner. Those findings will not
be taken into account as a finding of fact or law either by the trial Court in
the Suit or by any other Court in any future litigation regarding the title.
Government
of the People :S Republic of Bangladesh vs East West Property Development
Private Ltd & others 52 DLR (AD) 43
Article 102–
The
petitioner is a Chairman of the Pourashava and because of the impugned Gazette
Notification relating to delimitation of wards he cannot be said to be an
aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 102 of the Constitution in that
by such Notification no right of his, either constitutional or legal, has been
infringed.
Khalilur
Rahman (Md) vs Government of Bangladesh and others 52 DLR (AD) 115.
Article 102–
The
aggrieved persons cannot wait for an indefinite period for the result of their
representations but must come to the writ jurisdiction as expeditiously as
possible to avoid delay in seeking a summary relief. All of them are guilty of
laches, their writ petitions were therefore, rightly rejected, although on
different grounds.
Fazlur
Rahman Akhond (Md) and five others vs Government of Bangladesh and others 52
DLR (AD) 116.
Article 102–
Judicial
propriety and norm do not approve of passing of order by a. Division Bench when
there was a pending order passed by another Division Bench.
Novartis
Foundation vs RK Ruma and others 52 DLR (AD) 138.
Article 102–
It is well
settled that a writ bench will not go into and resolve contentious matters in
its summary procedure.
Bangladesh
and another vs Habib Zamil 52 DLR (AD) 174.
Article 102–
A person in
the service of the Republic who intends to invoke fundamental right for
challenging the vires of a law will seek his remedy under Article 102(1 ), but
in all other cases he will be required to seek remedy under Article 117(2).
Delwar
Hossain Mia (Md) and another vs Bangladesh and others 52 DLR (AD) 120.
Article 102–
Locus standi–Any
wrong doing or invasion of public rights against the aims and objects of
societies does clothe the petitioners with the necessary locus standi to move
the Courts of law.
Professor
Nurul Islam and others vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh
& ors 52 DLR 413.
Article 102–
The right to
office one holds and the right to pay/salary one draws are vested during the
continuance of the employment. An action affecting, altering or infringing upon
any such right taken not in accordance with law must be struck down.
Amirul Islam
(Md) and others vs Thana Nirbahi Officer and others 52 DLR 388.
Article 102–
We failed to
understand under what reason the period of limitation has been fixed at 108
days. Either it would be one month, three months or six months but section 7(1)
has provided the Limitation of 108 days which means 3 months 18 days and such
period of limitation could nowhere be found in the Limitation Act or in any
other special Act providing limitation, this may be through inadvertence or
mistake that 180 days has been printed as 108 days.
Jamal
Hossain (Md) and others vs Chairman, 2nd Court of Settlement, Abandoned
Buildings, Dhaka and others 52 DLR 67.
Article 102–
Defect of
party– Assertion of the respondent that alleged unutilised land have been
allotted to different persons and they are in possession o(the same having not
been denied by the petitioners, the Rules are bad for defect of parties.
Jamir Ali
(Md) and others vs Secretary, Ministry of Land and others 52 DLR 125.
Article 102–
Vested right–Petitioner’s
contention that his vested right in the fishery has been violated is not well–conceived
in that by the execution of lease deed in his favour prior to acceptance of the
bid by the authority no right of any kind in the fishery was created in his
favour.
Bashiruddin
(Md) vs Bangladesh, and others 52 DLR 201.
Article 102–
Since
petitioner’s bid was not ultimately approved by the prescribed authority, so
even if lease deed was executed and possession was delivered before approval of
bid he did not acquire any right in the fishery in question.
Bashiruddin
(Md) vs Bangladesh, and others 52 DLR 201.
Article 102–
Safe custody
is a judicial custody for definite purpose of ensuring the welfare of a victim
girl devised by our courts.
Rokeya Kabir
vs Government of Bangladesh through the Ministry of Home Affairs and others 52
DLR 234.
Article 102–
Interministerial
communications are merely policy guidelines and do not create any legal right
in favour of any person.
Nur Hossain
(Md) vs Secretary, Ministry of Land and ors 52 DLR 275.
Article 102–
Legitimate
expectation–The petitioners’ expectations of being absorbed in the service
after satisfactory completion of five years service cannot but be said to be
their legitimate expectation and in all fairness they should be absorbed in
their service.
Rabia Bashri
Irene and another vs Bangladesh Biman Corporation and another 52 DLR 308.
Article 102–
The
petitioner being one of the contracting parties can establish before a
competent Court that there had been a mutual mistake and seek remedy for
rectification of the contract. The writ Court cannot direct the respondents to
rectify or alter the contract in order to make it equal to the contracts entered
into with the others.
Abu Mohammad
vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh & another 52 DLR 352.
Article 102–
Distribution
of population in different wards with a variation of not more than ten percent
being a disputed question of fact cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction.
Abdul Mannan
and another vs Secretary, Ministry of LGRD and others 52 DLR 471.
Article 102–
A case of
legitimate expectation would arise when a body by representation or by past
practice aroused expectation which it would be within its powers to fulfil. In
a given case whether there are such facts and circumstances giving rise to
legitimate expectation, it would primarily be a question of fact.
North South
Property Development Ltd vs Ministry of Land, Secretary, & another 52 DLR
7.
Article 102–
Since the
Court of Settlement has already directed for exclusion of the property from the
list of abandoned property no further direction by the High Court Division is
necessary to the same effect. The respondents are directed to restore
possession of the property to the petitioner evicting the occupier respondent.
Akhtar
Hossain vs Bangladesh, and others 52 DLR 148.
Article 102–
Unless a
final decision is made by higher Administrative Authority after the conclusion
of the proceeding under challenge an application cannot be entertained by the
Administrative Tribunal, but before such decision to be made by the authority,
the right of the petitioner in the service of the Republic and his
remuneration, cannot be curtailed by the respondent who had no legal authority
to do so. Therefore, the departmental proceeding is held to be without any
jurisdiction and it must be perished under the wheel of judicial review.
Shahjahan
Howlader (Md) vs Bazlur Rahman & another 52 DLR 358.
Article 102–
There is no
scope for violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner as guaranteed
by Article 35(4) of the Constitution inasmuch as the issuance of the notice
under section 4(1) of the Act will be presumed to be the fact collection
process only.
Begum
Tahmina vs Government of Bangladesh and others 52 DLR 503.
Article 102–
No
relationship of landlord and tenant having existed now petitioners are in
illegal occupation. Hence, they have no locus standi to invoke writ
jurisdiction of the Court.
Meridian
International (Pvt) Ltd and another vs Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakha (RAJUK) and
others 53 DLR 35
Article 102–
Against the
dismissal options were open to the plaintiff either to sue .in a civil Court or
to move in writ under Article 102 of the Constitution. He opted to sue in a
civil Court. The decisions of the Courts below setting aside the order of
returning the plaint therefore do not call for interference.
Sonali Bank
and others vs Md Jalaluddin and another 53 DLR 48.