Premature—Respondent No.1 brought writ petition for a declaration that the writ petitioner was entitled to be declared as a recognized private university as per provisions of the Act—during the pendency of the writ petition the Grants Commission on 14 October 1997 informed the Secretary of the Ministry of Education that in view of the fulfillment of the conditions by respondent No. 1 permission could be accorded to the proposed university, namely, Dhaka International University on condition that the respondent would withdraw the writ petition —the writ petition in the circumstances must be considered as premature, the case of action not having arisen.
Bangladesh & Ors. Vs. Dhaka International University & Ors 8BLT (AD)-198
Article-102 read with
Members of Parliament (Determination of Dispute) Act, 1981
The Speaker in section 3 of Act No. 1 of 1981 is not a constitutional functionary when he refers the dispute to the dispute to the Election Commission. He is statutory functionary discharging a constitutional obligation. Being creature of a stature, i.e. a
subordinate legislation, he is very much amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division.
Secretary. Parliament Secretarial Vs. Khondaker Delwar Hossain & Ors 8 BLT (AD)-215.
Jurisdiction —Admittedly the respondent was originally an employee of the Telegraph and Telephone Department of the Government and after the constitution of the Telegraph and Telephone Board under the Telegraph and Telephone Board Ordinance 1975 he become an employee of the Board. He becomes a Senior Accountant having been recruited by the Board and thus he lost his original character of a Government servant. After the substituted by the Ordinance of 1979 there is no dispute
that the employees of the “Board” like the respondent were to be governed by Section I8(2)(f)(ii) of the Ordinance of 1979—Held : The respondent became an employee of the Government by reason of Section-18(2)(f)(ii) of the Ordinance of 1979 and his service was lent to be the Board and therefore he squarely qualified to the a person in the service of the Republic so that it
naturally followed that the writ petition filed by him was not maintainable.
Chairman T&T Board & Ors. Vs. Md. Shaiul Alain & Ors 8BLT(AD)-225.
Order the Election Commission— Held: We have already noticed that disturbance that took place on the election day in the two election centers were brought to the notice of the respective Presiding Officer by the chief election agent of the appellant and
on their refusal to accept the written complaint and to postpone the election he made a written complaint to the Chief Election Commissioner on the very same day. The allegations made by him in the said application and subsequent application filed on the next day having been found correct by the Deputy Election Commissioner after enquiry High Court Division was not justified in declaring the order of the Election Commission to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. In the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the order of the Election Commission was without jurisdiction (coram non-judice) or vitiated by malice in law. High Court Division should not have interfered with the order of the Election Commission.
Noor Hossain Vs. Md. Nazrul Islam & Ors. 8BLT (AD)-295
Held : It may be mentioned hare that in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 109 of the Constitution the High Court Division has got power to call for any records pending before the Subordinate Court but then in a case where provision of filing of a revision is barred under special statue I am afraid the argument of Mahmudul Islam that revision lies is not entertainable. There are various decisions form Indian jurisdiction where it has been held that for fundamental basic principle of justice and fair play or where a patent or flagrant error in the procedure or law has crept in or where the order was passed resulting in manifest injustice the High Court Division in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction can interfere, even if no
appeal or revision has been filed. But in a case whether a statute bars entertainment of a revision the exercise of supervisory power under Article 109 of the Constitution is not available.
Mrs. Hosne Ara Begum & Anr. Vs. Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd. 9BLT (AD)-1