The preamble of our Constitution undertakes to secure to every citizen justice. The preamble along with other articles and provision of the Constitution have given justice an ampler dimension to provide justice to every citizen of the country. Above all
the Constitution! reposes all the power to the people. Article 7 makes it clear that all legislative, judicial and executive powers are conferred on the people
through the Constitution.
ETV Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Govt of Bangladesh & Ors 10 BLT (AD)-108
Article-10, 28 (2), 29 (2), 27, 31 and 40 read with
The Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Rules, 1975
Held, But the existing Rules, in view of our above discussion, are inept, in-cohesive, inadequate-ate, ambiguous and ineffective having tendency to pick and choose policy, arbitrariness, absurdities and require to be remodeled and redrafted in the given situation and demand of time with sound thought and modern look with special reference to Article 10. 28(2), 29(2), 27, 31 and 40 and the Warrant of Precedence and the Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Rules, 1975 (Annexure-E to the Writ Petition) is therefore, struck down being unconstitutional.
Moulana Ruhul Mannan Helali Vs. Government of Bangladesh Ors. 11 BLT (HCD)-336
Articles-27 & 29 read with
Bangladesh Power Development Board (Employees) Service Rules, 1982, Rule-14
Class-III employees of PDB— An employee cannot raise the plea of violation of fundamental right in case of transfer.
Md. Jihad Ahmed & Ors. Vs. Bangladesh Power Development Board & Ors 8 BLT(AD)-164
Artiele-27 & 31
Writ of mandamus—public interest litigation — the foot paths and the pavements are public properties and nobody can encroach upon the same creating obstructions against free use by the public as contended by the petitioner himself— Held : The foot-paths, the pavements and the streets are public property and not intended for encroachment by the private persons — the respondents shall and must keep the foot-paths, pavements of the roads and streets including narrow streets of the Dhaka City clean and clear for passage and use of the public and passersby and the respondents shall make a concerted moves to remove unauthorized constructions and stop dumping of all sorts of constructions materials form the foot paths and pavements of the roads and streets.
Omar Sasat Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. 9BLT (HCD)-24
The RAJUK is a statutory public authority within the meaning of the constitution. It is entrusted with enormous powers to regulate’ construction of buildings in the Metropolitan City. On the other hand, the people are guaranteed with “the protection of law, and to be treated in accordance with law, and only in accordance with law under article 31 of the Constitution. To carry out its public duties, the RAJUK is therefore, expected to act fairly and justly. It cannot act arbitrarily. They are expected to be more circumspect in exercising their statutory powers in dealing with the properties of the citizen. Moreover, it should also be
remembered, the exercise of powers of canceling a sanction is akin to and partakes of a quasi-judicial complexion and that in exercising the power to cancel-sanction the authority must bring to bear an unbiased mind, consider impartially the objections raised by the aggrieved party and decide the matter
consistent with the principles of natural justice.
A Rouf Chowdhury & Anr. Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. 8BLT(HCD)-277
In the instant case the primary allegations against the accused is that he had committed an offence of murder for which charge sheet has been submitted under section 302/34 of the Penal Code. Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks that when there is a reasonable ground for believing that a person is guilty of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he should not be granted bail. Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a procedural law and the accused having alleged to have committed a substantive offence of murder his
liberty is curtailed.
The State vs. Faisal Alam Ansari 9BLT(AD)-189
Article-35(4) read with
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 [V of 1898] Section-94 and 160
Held : In the instant cases the respondents have been asked to produce certain documents that being no mention under what authority or power the notice has been issued. The petitioners who have received the notices have a right to be satisfied that the
impugned notices have been issued under due process of law and unless the source of power and Authority is mentioned the petitioners has no means of knowing that the notices are authorized by law. The notices suffer from inadequacy making them no notice under law. Therefore find that the notices in these Writ Petitioners to be not being in accordance with law. The petitioners are not under obligation to comply with the direction given by the impugned notices.
Giasuddin Al-Mamun & Ors. Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. (HCD)-47
Held : Although notice has been served under Section 160 Cr.P.C. asking the petitioner to appear before the relevant authority for making statement and examination of documents the notice does not disclose what documents are to be produced. The words ” mswkó KvMRc‡Îi weeiYÓ has been penned through. The notice therefore suffers from serious defect which cannot be complied with by the petitioner in its present form. The notices are also vague and indefinite. We therefore hold the impugned notice Annexure-A is illegal and without lawful authority.
Giasuddin Al- Mamun & Ors. Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. (HCD)-47
Held : However we observe that the notice has not only asked for documents and things but has also asked for statement of moveable and immovable properties in the name of the petitioner and his demanders. This statement obviously can be only asked under Section 4( I) of the Anti Corruption Act which requires the satisfaction of the Government. In the instant case the Annexure-A does not say that the Government or the Anti-Corruption is satisfied that the petitioner has property disproportionated to the known source of income. Therefore the impugned notice Annexure-A is illegal and without lawful authority.
Giasuddin Al- Mamun & Ors. Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. (HCD)-47
Whether section 25(3) of the Financial Institution Act. 1993 is ultra vires Article 38 of the Constitution.
The fallacy of the submission is that the petitioner company was formed in 1995 under the said Act with all the restriction contained therein. It was also not formed with petitioner Nos. 2-5 as nominee directors. The petitioner company was still
seeking the permission of Bangladesh Bank to include them in its Board of Directors. When the petitioner company was not formed at all with petitioner Nos. 2-5 as its directors, there is no question of acquiring any fundamental right to continue with petitioner Nos. 2-5 as its directors. Besides the petitioner company was formed in 1995 after the Avw_©K cÖwZôvb AvBb, 1993 was enacted on 30.09.1993. It was already governed by the restrictions imposed by section 25(3) of the said Act. The petitioner company was formed knowingly and voluntarily under the restrictive provisions of the said Act. It cannot now complain that its freedom of association has been restricted by section 25(3).
Phoenix Leasing Ltd. & Vs. Bangladesh Bank & Ors. 8BLT(AD)-117
Right to propagate any religion—it is admitted that the petitioner and his devotees used to perform religious functions at the Darbar Sharif before the occurrence of 03.12.1999. As the petitioner was admittedly in possession of the Darbar Sharif and
devotees used the mosque within the campus for saying prayers, the respondents cannot prohibit them from entering into the mosque and the Darbar Sharif into the mosque and the Darbar Sharif to perform their day to day religious function.
Dewanbagh Darbar Sharif & Anr. Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors. 10BLT (HCD)-412
“We recommend that a Unified Marriage and Divorce Act for all the citizens should be enacted by the Parliament keeping in pace with the modern time” that the Said recommendation has violated fundamental right of the community as contended by
the leave petitioner.
Held: In the background of the provision of Article 41 of the Constitution we are of the view that the said recommendation of the High Court Division taking exception to and against which the leave petition has been filed need be expunged and that can be very well done without affecting the decree as passed in Divorce Suit No. 1 of 1998. Accordingly the controversial part of the judgment of the HighCourt Division which runs as, “we recommend that a Unified Marriage and Divorce Act for
all the citizens should be enacted by the Parliament keeping in pace with the modern time” is hereby expunged.
Legal Aid Bangladesh. Vs. Eva Chowdhury & Ors 11 BLT(AD)-180