Constitution
of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102–
In the
absence of any specific address with proper description of land of respective
possession there cannot be any restoration process.
Aleya Begum
and others vs Bangladesh and others 53 DLR 63.
Article 102–
Justice
demands that even trespassers cannot be evicted forcibly without notice and
without giving chance to them to remove themselves willingly.
Aleya Begum
and others vs Bangladesh and others 53 DLR 63.
Article 102–
Justice
demands that slum dwellers should not be unkindly evicted without alternative
arrangement for their rehabilitation. But in the instant case nothing can be
done at this stage when they were already evicted.
Aleya Begum
and others vs Bangladesh and others 53 DLR 63.
Article 102–
This court
while exercising jurisdiction of judicial review cannot sit over the finding of
the tribunal as a court of appeal and consequently cannot interfere with the
finding of fact based on the materials on record.
Sirajul
Islam (Md) and another vs Government of Bangladesh & others 53 DLR 127.
Article 102–
The
activities of the registered trade organisations are subject to the
jurisdiction of the Director as set up by the Trade Organisation Ordinance. The
petitioner should have gone before the said Director.
Abul Khair
Morselin (Md) vs Bangladesh and others 53 DLR 179.
Article 102–
The order
was passed by the Special Tribunal and under section 30 of the Special Powers
Act an appeal lies to this court but the petitioners did not file any appeal,
instead moved this court in its writ jurisdiction. The petitioners tried to
explain the reasons for not preferring the statutory appeal. The explanations
are not cogent and those cannot be accepted to avoid the availability of the
alternative remedy.
Sirajul
Islam (Md) and another vs Government of Bangladesh & others 53 DLR I 27.
Article 102–
Since the
respondents did not dispute the fact that the declaration of price was filed on
11–4–1994 and the same was accepted by the authority and that the petitioner
had paid VAT regularly on the basis of declaration no further fact is required
to be determined. The question involved in this application being purely a
question of law and the impugned demands being ex facie illegal, this writ
petition is maintainable.
Oram Limited
vs Commissioner of Customs Excise and VAT Commissionerate 53 DLR 373.
Article 102–
The
appointment in a teaching post of the University although can only be made by
the Syndicate but the syndicate being a creation of Ordinance, cannot act
arbitrarily or capriciously but must act judicially and fairly.
Dr Md
Alamgir vs Vice Chancellor, BUET and others 53 DLR 398.
Article 102–
The Writ
Petition fails as the discrepancy as’to the date of impugned judgment of the
Court of Settlement has not been explained.
Hamayet
Uddin Ahmed vs 1st Court of Settlement, Bangladesh Abandoned Building 53 DLR
426.
Article 102–
The High
Court Division could interfere with the findings of a tribunal only ifthe
tribunal had acted without jurisdiction or made any finding upon no evidence or
without considering any material evidence causing prejudice to the complaining
party or acted malafide or in violation of the principle of natural justice.
Hamayet
Uddin Ahmed vs 1st Court of Settlement, Bangladesh Abandoned Building & ors
53 DLR 426.
Article 102–
The ministry
instead of obtaining post landing inspection report to remove apprehension that
cargo was bad detained the vessel in a high–handed manner which was not the way
authorised by law or contract to recover loss.
Seastar
Shipping Lines Ltd vs Bangladesh & others 53 DLR 449.
Article 102–
Any
aggrieved party against the decision of the Divisional Commissioner in civil
matters can maintain an application under Article 102 of the Constitution and
not a revision petition under section 115(1) CPC.
Bangladesh
Forest Industries Development Corporation and others vs Sheikh Abdul Jabbar 53
DLR 488.
Article 102–
Since the
question of title and possession have been settled by the highest Court of the
country the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) had, in fact, no option in
law but to mutate the name of the petitioner by correcting the record of right.
Abdul Moin
vs Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land; & ors 53 DLR
506.
Article 102–
Contractual
obligations–Writ jurisdiction–Since the respondent No. 1 itself was responsible
for not completing the transaction of sale of the case–property, and there was
no reason for rescinding the contract rescission of the contract by the Memo
Annexure A is illegal and without any lawful authority.
Nazrul Islam
(Md) and others vs Bangladesh, and ors 53 DLR 519.
Article 102–
Matter
contentious in nature Writ jurisdictlon–The instant case does not come within
‘the ground of exceptional cases where writ court may dispose of a matter by calling
one to give one’s testimony as to the subject matter of the case before the
writ court, particularly as to matter of possession of the plots ‘and quan~ity
of the lands comprised by the said plots mentioned in the instant writ
petition.
Direct of
HBRI vs Darus Salam Co–operative Housing Society Ltd and ors 54 DLR (AD) 111.
Article 102–
Writ
Jurisdiction– Locus standi
The narrow
confines within which the rule of standing was imprisoned for long years have
been broken and new dimension is being given to the doctrine of locus standi.
Ekushay
Television Ltd and others vs Dr Chowdhury Mahmood Hasan and others 54 DLR (AD)
130.
Article 102–
The cutting
edge of law is remedial and the art of justice has to respond here so that
transparency wins over opaqueness.
Ekushay
Television Ltd and others vs Dr Chowdhury Mahmmod Hasan and others 54 DLR (AD)
130.
Article 102–
Writ
Jurisdiction– Locus standi
The
preliminary objection raised challenging the locus standi of the petitioners
must be rejected since important issues relating to public wrong and rule of
law are involved.
Ekushay
Television Ltd and others vs Dr Chowdhury Mahmood Hasan and others 54 DLR (AD)
130.
Article 102–
Writ
Jurisdiction– Locus standi
It is not a
case of jurisdiction of the court, but a case of discretion of the court, which
discretion has to be exercised on consideration of facts and law points
involved in each case.
Ekushay
Television Ltd and others vs Dr Chowdhury Mahmood Hasan and others 54 DLR (AD)
130.
Article 102–
Writ
Jurisdiction– Laches and negligence
The test in
such case is not physical running of time but whether a parallel right has
accrued and whether the lapse of time can be attributable to laches and
negligence.
Ekushay
Television Ltd and others vs Dr Chowdhury Mahmood Hasan and others 54 DLR (AD)
130.
Article 102–
Writ
Jurisdiction– Investigation by Court
If the Court
thought it appropriate that an investigation should be made in a writ petition,
they were not barred from directing parties to lead evidence. Such an
investigation only assists the court in the realisation of the constitutional
objectives.
Ekushay
Television Ltd and others vs Dr Chowdhury Mahmood Hasan and others 54 DLR (AD)
130.
Article 102–
Writ
Jurisdiction– Malafide
The changing
of the evaluation report is malafide, the process of preparing the evaluation
report is not transparent and subsequent actions taken on the basis of the
changed report are malafide– The licence given to ETV is not, therefore,
sustainable in law.
Ekushay
Television Ltd and others vs Dr Chowdhury Mahmood Hasan and others 54 DLR (AD)
130.
Article 102–
When the
very basis of issuance of notice under section 93 of the Ordinance is under
challenge on the ground of want of jurisdiction, the petitioner without approaching
the Commissioner under section 121 is entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction.
American
Express Bank Limited vs Chairman National Board of Revenue 54 DLR 6.
Article 102–
Writ
petition– Locus standi
The
petitioner claiming that he is affected by the hartal call is an aggrieved
party– He has the locus standi to file present petition.
Khondaker
Modarresh Elahi vs Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh 54 DLR 47.
Article 102–
In view of
Article 152(2) of the Constitution read with section 3(39) of the General
Clauses Act, the word “person” in Article 102(2)(i) and (ii) of the
Constitution would include a juristic person like a company.
Farzana
Moazzem vs Securities and Exchange Commission and others 54 DLR 66.
Article 102–
When the order
complained of itself suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction, non–compliance
with the alternative remedy of appeal does not bar a writ petition.
Salim (Md)
vs AC, Land and Chairman, Debt Settlement–Board and others 54 DLR 72.
Article 102–
Order of
retirement– Application for review– In view of the decision in 42 DLR (AD) 214
the respondents are to communicate the result of the review application of the
petitioner. If the petitioner’s application is still undisposed of, the
government may take step to dispose of the application by creating an
appropriate Review Forum within 3 months from the date of receipt of this
order.
Dewan Abdul
Karim vs Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and ors 54 DLR 231.
Article 102–
An officer–in–charge
of a police station is legally bound to reduce an information of cognizable
offence into a first information report and to start investigation into the
case.
Yasmin
Sultana vs Bangladesh and others 54 DLR 269.
Article 102–
The
petitioners being duly appointed by the Pourashava Chairman, their appointments
cannot be cancelled by him on the plea that there were some irregularities in
the matter of appointment. If any irregularity was committed, it was for the
Chairman to account for it but the petitioners cannot be penalised.
Khorshed Ali
(Md) vs Secretary, Ministry of LGRD and Cooperatives and others 54 DLR 381.
Article 102–
There is no
scope for appeal against an order impounding a passport where the order was not
communicated to the petitioner. In such circumstances, a writ petition is
maintainable.
Tofail Ahmed
vs Bangladesh 54 DLR 403.
Article 102–
Writ
Petition–Addition of Party
There is no
scope of determining the question of title by the writ petition. The applicant
cannot be made party on the plea that their title in the land was included in
the campus.
Dewanbagh
Darbar Sharif and another vs Bangladesh and others 54 DLR 413.
Article 102–
The contract
for one year lease made in discharge of an ordinary function not rooted in a
statute cannot be enforced under the Writ Jurisdiction.
Ali Sikder
(Md) vs Government of Bangladesh & others 54 DLR 453.
Article 102–
On the
ground of inordinate delay the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected.
Delwar
Hossain (Md) vs Bangladesh and others 54 DLR 494.
Article 102–
Writ
Petition– Maintainability
All the
exercises that have been done by the contemners respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the
matter of preparation of the voter list and holding of the election have been
done by them in their official capacity as government servants and therefore
any order passed by them in their official capacity is amenable under Article
102 of the Constitution notwithstanding the fact that the federation itself is
not a statutory body.
Solaiman
(Md) and others vs Md Mosharaf Hossain Khan and others 54 DLR 531.
Article 102–
Writ
petition– Locus standi
A person
not personally aggrieved may also come if his heart bleeds for his Jess
fortunate fellow for any wrong done by
the Government. When an action concerns public wrong or invasion on the
fundamental rights of indeterminate number of people, any member of the public
suffering the common injury has the right to invoke the writ jurisdiction.
Chowdhury
Mahmood Hasan and others vs Bangladesh and others 54 DLR 537.
Article 102–
Writ petition–
Locus standi
Though the
petitioners are not directly affected by the action of the respondents but when
they came to know about the malafide action of a very responsible Ministry of
the Government, they are entitled to move this Court for judicial review of
such action.
Chowdhury
Mahmood Hasan and others vs Bangladesh and others 54 DLR 537.
Article 102–
The court
cannot review the merits of the decision of the executive authority but can
review the decision making process.
Chowdhury
Mahmood Hasan and others vs Bangladesh and others 54 DLR 537
Article 102–
Writ
petition–Transparency
Questions – why
the Ministry of Information acted on an incomplete and conditional report, how
the conditions were determined, how on such a vague report the Ministry found
only ETV agreeable to fulfil the conditions remained shrouded in mystery.
Chowdhury
Mahmood Hasan and others vs Bangladesh and others 54 DLR 537.
Article 102–
Writ
petition– Transparency– It is true that ETV obtained a certificate of registration
but obtaining of such a certificate itself is not sufficient to set up
telecasting installation. The process of accepting the proposal of ETV was not
transparent and as such was malafide.
Chowdhury
Mahmood Hasan and others vs Bangladesh and others 54 DLR 537.
Article 102–
Writ
petition– Malafide
The proposal
submitted by the proprietor of the firm and signing of agreement with him
cannot be considered as illegal–But the process followed in accepting the
proposal of ETV being malafide and not transparent, granting of the licence to
it was not lawful.
Chowdhury
Mahmood Hasan and others vs Bangladesh and others 54 DLR 537.
Article 102–
Only that
person is entitled to get a show cause notice from whose custody the goods in
question is seized. In the instant case the goods were seized from an abandoned
truck and therefore the order of confiscating the goods in the absence of the
show cause notice could not make the order of confiscation as illegal.
Government
of Bangladesh and others vs Abu Musa 53 DLR (AD) 77.
Article 102–
Facts
alleging which legality of the declaration of election result has been
challenged are an election dispute. In Part–III of the Rules provision has been
made for adjudication of such dispute by the election tribunal.
Mozibur Rahman
Moznu (Md) vs Abdul Halim and others 53 DLR (AD) 93.
Article 102–
When the petitioner contested the case before
the Tribunal and has not preferred any appeal and when he had a remedy before
the Administrative Appellate Tribunal writ petition was rightly rejected.
Government
of Banlgadesh vs Member, Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka and others 53 DLR (AD)
112.
Article 102–
Mandamus–
One could only avail the forum by way of mandamus for enforcement of any legal
right or to redress the violation thereof.
Hazerullah
vs AC, Board of Management of Abandoned Property and others 55 DLR (AD) 15.
Article 102–
The
respondent could have approached the appropriate authority to agitate its
inevance before it and wait for its reply. But instead it went to the High
Court Division straightaway invoking the writ jurisdiction before the cause of
action, if any, had matured.
Secretary,
Ministry of Education, Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others
vs North South University 55 DLR (AD) 94.
Article 102–
Though the
Governor and Deputy Governor of Bangladesh Bank are members of the Board of
Directors of Security Printing Corporation (Bangladesh) Limited they do not
perform any function of the company for or on behalf of the Bangladesh Bank.
They merely discharge their duties as members of Board of Directors of the
company and while they discharge such duties and functions they do not
discharge such duties and functions in connection with the affairs of the
Republic of any local authority. So, their action cannot be challenged under
Article 102(2)(a)(i) of the Constitution.
Global
Access Ltd vs Bangladesh and others 55 DLR 433.
Article 102–
Though High
Court Division found relying upon the case of Sultana Jute Mills Ltd that a
revisional application under section 115 of the Code against an order of the
Artha Rin Adalat is not maintainable made the Rule absolute invoking inherent
power of the court under section 151 of the Code.
Agrani Bank
vs Artha Rin Ada/at and others 55 DLR 389.
Article 102–
Relief
claimed regarding declaration of the news to be without any basis and/or for
direction to pay compensation by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are not
justiciable under Article 102 of the Constitution, there being other
efficacious remedy available and also the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 being not
persons performing any function in connection with the affairs of the Republic.
Aminul Haque
Shamim (Md) vs Secretary, Ministry of Information and others 55 DLR 90.
Article 102–
The
registration of the proposed project as approved by the Board of Investment in
the absence of any feasibility report and financial analysis is act of
negligence and arbitrariness.
Engineer
Mahmudul Islam and others vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh
and others 55 DLR 171.
Article 102–
Since we
have seen that the impugned approval has been given effect, even in the absence
of the agreement of implementation, which is under process, and based on such
approval leases of land are given in favour of respondent No. 8, the impugned
approval appears to be an independent form of a full–fledged contract, which
has been processed arbitrarily without application of mind with negligence in
favour of an illegal company, and therefore the approval is illegal, without
lawful authority and is of no legal effect.
Engineer
Mahmudul Islam and others vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh
and others 55 DLR 171.
Article 102 –
Locus standi–
The question of locus standi does not involve the Court’s jurisdiction–The
competency of a person to claim hearing is one of discretion, which the Court
exercises upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case–Any
citizen may move the Court in respect of an impending threat of the right and
interest of the citizen.
Engineer
Mahmudul Islam and others vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh
and others 55 DLR 171.
Article 102–
When the
abuse of office through any improper action of a State executive in dealing
with State property as well as State policy is alleged, the Court will not
close its eyes to redress such improper action on the technicalities as to the
question of locus standi of the petitioner and maintainability of the
proceeding.
Engineer
Mahmudul Islam and others vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh
and others 55 DLR 171.
Article 102–
A decision
of the State may not be permitted to be challenged in a Court of Law but the
implementation of such decision by the executive authority of the State without
reasonableness and fairness is liable to be challenged in the Court of Law.
Engineer
Mahmudul Islam and others vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh
and others 55 DLR 171.
Article 102–
The detenu
is directed to be set at liberty within three hours and the District Magistrate
Abdul Huq is to pay him a compensatory cost of Taka 5,000 for whimsical
exercise of power curtailing the liberty of a person.
Karban (Md)
vs Government of Bangladesh and others 55 DLR 194.
Article 102–
True, the
government which accorded registration to the samity of the respondent No. I
was present before the writ court and contested the Rule but the government,
for that matter, could not be taken to be a substitute for the review
petitioners in protecting their interest.
MA Bari and
others vs Uttara Sarkari Officers Quarter Kallayan Samity & ors 55 DLR 289.
Article 102–
While the
order of stay was in force the Department of Social Welfare accorded
registration in favour of the samity of the writ petitioners. Hence the
registration is invalid and a nullity.
MA Bari and
others vs Uttara Sarkari Officers Quarter Kallayan Samity & ors 55 DLR 289
Article 102–
Since the
judgment in the writ petition was obtained by the respondent writ petitioner
behind the back of the review petitioners adversely affecting their interest
the same is set aside on review.
MA Bari and
others vs Uttara Sarkari Officers Quarter Kallayan Samity & ors 55 DLR 289.
Article 102–
Maintainability
of writ petition– When applicability or non–applicability of certain Orders,
Notifications, Rules are in question, in that case, it is a question of
interpretation of law. Where interpretation of law is in question, the Writ
Petition is maintainable.
Reliance
Auto Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Chittagong 55 DLR 322.
Article 102–
Public
Interest Litigation–The settled position is that one cannot resort to this
Article unless he is “an aggrieved” person within the meaning of this
article. This concept of aggrievedness is somewhat relaxed in certain circumstances
when it comes to public interest litigation. But even in case of such
litigation the petitioner must have sufficient interest in the matter.
SN Goswami,
Advocate & anr vs Govt of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh & ors 55
DLR 332.
Article 102–
Locus standi–
The petitioners are persons having least know ledge about the appointments in
question and also have no personal interest and thus they are none but
busybodies.
SN Goswami,
Advocate & anr vs Govt of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh & ors 55
DLR 332.
Article 102–
Provisions
of these sections are to some extent inconsistent with the provisions of the
Constitution–To remove the inconsistencies some recommendations as given herein
are needed.
Bangladesh
Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and others vs Bangladesh and others 55 DLR
363.
Article 102–
The
petitioner ought to have been given chance to adduce evidence to prove the deed
of sale in his name– His prayer should not be thrown away on the plea that his
Advocate previously expressed intention not to examine any further witness.
Abdur Rahman
vs Government of Bangladesh and another 55 DLR 196.
Article 102–
Appointment
of a judge to the Appellate Division from amongst the judges of the High Court
Division is not a promotion, it is a fresh appointment made by the President
under article 95(1) from amongst the qualified persons in terms of sub–article
(2) of article 95 of the Constitution.
SN Goswami,
Advocate & anr vs Govt of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh & ors 55
DLR 332.
Article 102–
In the
matter of public service, right to the post one holds and the pay one receives
are vested and none of the rights could be affected adversely by any authority
without notice or personal hearing following the procedures laid down by the
Rules and/or Regulations for such service.
Helal Uddin
(Md) vs Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others 55 DLR 506.
Article 102–
Contract
with Government–In each and every contract entered into between the Government
and a private individual writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked because the remedy
lies in damages.
Al–Amin
Construction Co Ltd vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and
others 55 DLR 510.
Article 102–
Contract
with Government– Even in case of a private contract being a trading contract if
the Government acts with malafide intention Writ Petition for breach of
obligation against the Government lies.
Al–Amin
Construction Co Ltd vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and
others 55 DLR 510.
Article 102–
Bid for
public work– Public functionaries in discharging public duty must not be seen
to be acting unreasonably, unfairly, arbitrarily and their action must be free
from any taint· of opacity and/or intransparency.
Al–Amin
Construction Co Ltd vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and
others 55 DLR 510.
Article 102–
Environmental
hazards– Directions to ensure air and atmosphere free from pollution–Urgent
preventive measures to halt sagging environment pollution and degradation of Dhaka
city, one of the worst in the world, due to audible vehicular sounds and
emission of hazardous black smoke from faulty and arrogant motor vehicles is
indeed, overdue. Hence, in the prevailing situation, ad–interim directions as
sought for and necessary are given.
Dr Mohiuddin
Farooque and another vs Government of Bangladesh and others 55 DLR 613.
Article 102–
There is no
provision in the Constitution precluding the High Court Division to review its
Judgment and order– The Court’s inherent power to do justice to the parties
before it is accepted one and for that purpose the form in which the Court
shall dispense justice is a matter for the Court to resort to.
Serajuddin
Ahmed and others vs AKM Saiful Alam and others 56 DLR (AD) 41.
Article 102–
The birth
right of anyone to be a citizen of any particular country could not be brushed
aside in the absence of any positive contrary intention manifested so as to
deprive him of the right to be a citizen of a country where he was born.
Bangladesh
vs Rehana Kamal and others 56 DLR (AD) 1.
Article 102–
When
Government feels necessity of terminating appointment of a Public Prosecutor,
questioning legality of termination of such appointment by a person claiming to
be the informant of or the witness in the case can hardly be considered legally
well conceived.
SM Jillur
Rahman vs Bangladesh and others 56 DLR (AD) 127.
Article 102–
Unless final
order is passed in a matter, person interested in the matter or persons
apprehensive of being affected by the act of functionaries performing·
functions in connection with the affairs of the Republic or of a local
authority is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction.
Kamaluddin
(Md) and another vs Secretary, Ministry of Land, Bangladesh and others 56 DLR
(AD) 212.
Article 102–
Locus standi–A
principal or a teacher of a Non–Government College or School has no locus
standi to file a writ petition challenging the legality of nomination of
Chairman of the Governing Body of the College/School.
Alauddin
Sikder (Md) and another vs Bangladesh and others 56 DLR (ADJ 130.
Article 102–
Cost– The
petitioners in spite of being conscious of their having no locus standi to
maintain the writ petition filed the same and thus entangled the college into
useless litigation touching fund of the college with ulterior motive. 1n this
view the petitioners be saddled with cost.
Alauddin
Sikder (Md) and another vs Bangladesh and others 56 DLR (AD) 130.
Article 102–
Writ
jurisdiction–Alternative remedy
If an order
affecting one’s legal right is challenged as wholly without authority, an
alternative remedy provided by the statute will not stand in the way of the
exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Bangladesh
Bank and others vs Zafar Ahmed Chowdhury and another 56 DLR (ADJ 175.
Article 102–
Without
issuing any Rule while disposing of the application under Article 102 of the
Constitution the High Court Division was not authorised in law to pass any ad–interim
relief which it could pass in aid of or ancillary to the main relief upon final
determination of the rights of parties.
Bangladesh
Bank and others vs Zafar Ahmed Chowdhury and another 56 DLR (AD) 175.
Article 102–
Mere raising
a dispute as to a fact does not make it disputed and the writ court while
exercising its power of judicial review can very much decipher the facts in the
context of the papers filed by the parties to see prima facie the bonafide of
the claim of the conflicting parties to the same right.
Ekushey
Television Ltd and another vs Bangladesh and others 56 DLR 91.
Article 102–
Mere reading
of the provisions of the Act of 200 I show that the same have been made to
protect the interest and the right of the persons who had an existing vested
legal right on the basis of a validly obtained licence, certificate or permit·
or licensing agreement before the Act of 2001 came into operation.
Ekushey
Television Ltd and another vs Bangladesh and others 56 DLR 91.
Article 102–
The
authority appears to have passed the impugned order of transfer of the
petitioner in the garb of stay of the earlier order of transfer. The order is
therefore, declared to have been passed without lawful authority.
Serajul
Islam Bhuiyan (Md) vs Bangladesh Water Development Board and others 56 DLR 120.
Article 102–
An action
taken without lawful authority can be challenged by an aggrieved person on an
application under Article 102 of the Constitution, and the criminal case
against him, if any, or non appearance in the said criminal case shall not
debar him from seeking justice in this forum under Article 102 of the
Constitution.
Shafiqul
Islam Shimul (Md) vs Bangladesh and others 56 DLR 239.
Article 102–
When a
Tribunal commits an error of law in deciding an issue raised by it, it acts
beyond its jurisdiction and such decision of the Tribunal can be quashed under
writ jurisdiction.
Abdur Rashid
Chowdhury vs Additional District Judge and other 56 DLR 573.
Article 102–
Principle of
legitimate expectation– An order made only once about 12 years back and that
also is not relating to the class of employees to which the petitioners belong.
Issuance of such a single order cannot be treated as a regular practice in
order to create a legitimate expectation.
Kazi Liakat
Ali and others vs Chairman, Civil Aviation Authority and another 56 DLR 595.
Article 102–
Application
is not maintainable as there is a provision for appeal against the impugned
order available under section 35 of the Waqf Ordinance. Without detailed
examination of evidence it cannot be said whether the property in question is a
Waqf property or not. Such detailed examination is hardly possible under writ
jurisdiction.
AKM Abdullah
Harun vs Additional District Judge and others 56 DLR 654.