Accountability—the conscience of a Judge becomes conditioned by the oath he takes to defend the Constitution. We are no doubt holding a public office on oath under the Constitution. A great trust and confidence of the people are reposed in such
office. Every day, we are discharging our constitutional duties within the public gaze. Our judgments are the acid test of our accountability. Further, if there is any lapse or failing in the capacity or conduct of a judge. Article 96 of the Constitution has ordained the President of the Republic to act and direct the Supreme Judicial Council to inquire into the matter and report its
finding to him. Thereupon, the President is empowered to take action under the Constitution. Originally in our Constitution, this power was given to the House of Nations like the parliament in India. So, it is not correct for anybody to think that the Judges are above law or. there is no accountability of the Judges under the constitution. The sooner it is understood by all and sundry is better for the whole nation.

Mainul Hosein & Ors. Vs. Sheikh Hasina Wazed 8BLT (HCD)-410

Article-102 read with

Bank Companies Act, 1991 [As amended] Section-17

The High Court Division simply does not have the jurisdiction to decide the validity of notice under section 17 of the said act upon adjudication of documents of both sides. The offending director may have a very good case to show that he has no personal liability to the lender Bank at all. But it is not for the High Court Division to determine or even hint at the offending director’s personal liability or otherwise, except on admission, when the only list before it is whether the notice under section 17 if legal or not. All other matters will go to the Bangladesh Bank for determination.

Masudul Alam Chowdhury Vs. Bangladesh Bank & Ors. 8BLT(AD)-13


Forum for a redress of the adverse remarks.

The petitioner seems to have a genuine grievance because of the adverse remarks made against him, which is likely to affect him prejudicially. He appeared as a witness for a party and his evidence can be legitimately made a subject of comment by the authority hearing the matter but to say further that he was an undesirable person for the purpose or management of the estate/ mosque (which is found to have been established by his grandfather) was perhaps going too far. He was not told beforehand that he was a bad person and so cannot be included in the managing Committee. At the same time, we have no manner of doubt that the writ jurisdiction was not the appropriate forum for a redress of his grievance. He should have moved the Administrator of Waqfs for expunging the uncharitable remarks made against him instead of rushing in with a writ petition which was not well conceived. The petitioner may still approach the Administrator of Waqfs if he so likes to consider his case for expunging the remarks which are claimed to be adverse and not necessary for the purpose of disposal of the proceeding in question.

Md. Ali Akbar Vs. The Administrator of Waqfs & Ors 8BLT(AD)-31


Item No. 72.04 of Section XV of the First Schedule to the Customs Act. 1969 —As is clear from the facts of this case the order of adjudication contains not only an interpretation of technical words used in the Customs Act but also a technical appreciation of the nature imported goods. On such matters the High Court Division is not the proper forum for a filial adjudication at the first
instance. The National Board of Revenue having both the technical competence and technical assistance available on hand was in a better position to adjudicate upon the Adjudication Order and the subsequent order. If thereafter any point of law was left to be decided further either side could have then invoked the writ jurisdiction.

Govt. of Bangladesh Vs. Section Steel Industries Ltd. 8BLT(AD)-34


In the instant case, the writ petitioner is a Government servant. He has not challenged the vires of any law. His grievance relates to the terms and conditions of his service. The High Court Division is therefore correct in its view that the writ petitions are no maintainable under Article 102 of the Constitution.

Md. Shamsul Islam Khan Vs. Ministry of Communications & Ors 8 BLT (AD)-64.


Locus standi—being added as a party in the writ petition.

Even when a political party which obtained a protected symbol before the general election held on the 12th June, 1996 decides not to take part in a by election, the Returning Officer is still under a cautionary direction of the Election Commission to scrutinize the written documents of a candidate if he presents himself as a nominated candidate of a political party which took part in the general election held on the 12th June, 1996, It is the case of the appellant that it did not nominate the writ petitioner as its candidate for the by election in question and therefore it has a sustained interest in its protected symbol ‘Langal”. If the decision of the High Court Division in the impugned judgment is to the effect that the symbol ‘Langal’ will be allotted to a person who has not been nominated by the appellant as its candidate in the by-election in question, than that political party, namely, the appellant, has every locus standi to prefer this appeal and prosecute the same in order to safeguarded and protect its claimed protected symbol.

Jativa Parlv Vs. Motassim Billah & Ors 8BLT (AD)-100


Interference at an intermediate stage in the election process.

We have gone through the writ petition. We do not find that there is any allegation as to coram non-judice or absence of jurisdiction or malice in law in the writ petition. The grounds taken are that the order of rejection of the Returning Officer dated 19.04.1999 is arbitrary, mala fide, without lawful authority and for collateral purpose 1 here is absolutely no factual matrin justifying the allegation of mala fide and there is no indication either as to for what collateral purpose the impugned
order was passed—writ petition is not maintainable.

Jatiya Party Vs. Motassim Billah & Ors 8BLT (AD)-100


Interpretation of direction of the Election Commission.

Allocating a protected symbol —The High Court Division has observed that it was not the question before the Returning Officer as to which of the two factions is entitled to the symbol ‘Langal” In its opinion the question before the Returning Officer was whether after withdrawal of candidature by Mr. Abdul Hamid respondent No. 1. whatever faction of Jatiya Party he belonged to was entitled to the symbol of ‘Langal’ This is again a misdirected opinion of the High Court Division. Both Mr. Abdul Hamid if he was in the race and respondent No. 1 were required to produce their respective written documents before the Returning Officer if both of them claimed the protected symbol ‘Langal’ If only one of them remains in the race he too has the obligation to produce written document before the Returning Officer to show that he is nominated by that political party which obtained the protected symbol ‘Langal in the ‘General Election held on the 12th June. 1996. That is the burden of proof of any candidate does not produce written documents to the Retiming Officer to satisfy him on this point then the Returning Officer imperfectly entitled to refuse him to allocate the protected symbol on the ground that the failed to produce his papers. It is a contested mater before him. he will evaluate both sides written documents and come to a decision according to his best judgment.

Jatiya Partv Vs. Motassim Billah & Ors 8BLT (AD)-100

Article-102 and

Bangladesh Tariff Commission Act, 1992 [Act No XLII1 of 1992] and

The Evidence Act, 1872 Section-114(c)

We are of the view that when a writ petition is filed on a bald assertion that the high powered committee arbitrarily and fictitiously raised tariff value without any material before it. the High Court Division ought not to rush into issuing a Rule Nisi and stay payment of duties and taxes. It should take notice under section 114(c) of the Evidence Act, 1872 and should start with the presumption of regularity in official business. Initially, in the writ petition itself, the writ petitioner must include some reliable and relevant materials to show that between the last date of fixation of tariff value and the impugned date of fixation of tariff value the international market prove of a particular imported item has either gone down or has gone up to an extent which is significantly higher or lower than the impugned fixation of tariff value, according as the writ petitioner’s case is. If there are no such materials in the writ petition itself the High Court Division should not entertain the petitioner and dismiss it in limine.

M/S Kamal Trading Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Ors 8BLT (AD)-108 .