Article-102
Writ of Mandamus—the respondents took objection to the High Court Division’s direction, the Ministry, to produce the relevant tile on the evaluation report and questioned why the court should take on its shoulder the onus to find malafide. According to them, burden should be on the shoulder of the petitioners, as they were the ones who alleged malafide. The answer to this that, if the learned Judges of the High Court Division thought it appropriate that an investigation should be
made in a writ petition, they were not barred from directing parties to lead evidence. Such investigations only assist the court in the realisation of the constitutional objectives. Such directions and orders passed by the court are incidental or ancillary to it jurisdiction of enforcement of fundamental rights. Power has been vested in the High Court Division to issue writ or order
to any party within its jurisdiction, under Article 102 of the Constitution. But this power should be exercised cautiously and prudently.
ETV Ltd & Anr. Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors. 10 BLT (AD)-108
Article-102
In the instant case the High Court Division looked into the procedure adopted in giving license to ETV; and on doing so it has exercised its jurisdiction under Article 102 which on the facts of the case, in our view, is quite justifiable.
ETV Ltd & Anr. Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors. 10 BLT (AD)-108
Article-102
Locus Standi—writ petitioners are not directly affected—Held: It must be remembered here, that it is not possible to lay down in clear and precise terms what is required to give a petitioner locus standi when public injury or public wrong is involve Locus
standi 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 point involved in each case, as already pointed out in the case of Ka/i Mukhlesur Rahman, As a matter of prudence and not a rule of law, the curt may confine its exercise of discretion, taking into consideration the facts, the
nature of the public wrong or public injury, the extent, of its seriousness and the relied claimed. Therefore, the concern shown by the bar, that giving locus standi to the petitioner will open the floodgates, and the court will soon be overburdened by cases, does not hold good. The discretion to open gates will always be with the court, which discretion will only be exercised within the bounds mentioned above.
ETV Ltd & Anr. Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors. 10 BLT (AD)-108
Article-102
Waqf Administrator has been passed complying the order the Stale Minister for Religious Affairs.
It appears that the impugned order has been passed at the direction of the State Minister for Religious Affairs and the Administrator of Waqf did not apply his mind, independently in passing the order the impugned order have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Md. Naser Haider Shamsu Vs. Government of Bangladesh & Ors. 10 BLT (HCD)-463.
Article-102 read with
Bangladesh Rin Salishi Ain 1989
Section-13
Impugned order was coram non-judice having been passed by the Chairman of the Board alone without the presence and participation of other members who also did not sign the impugned order. As a result the impugned order was wholly without jurisdiction and hence void. It is needless to mention here that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable in the instant case. Moreover, the impugned order as we have found is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioner in our
opinion is not debarred from invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 102 of the Constitution without availing of the alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Revenue Authority.
Mohammad Selim Vs. Assistant Commissioner & Ors. 10BLT (HCD)-29
Article-102
Maintainability—We are of the view that in view of the allegation as reported in the newspaper, the petitioner as an Advocate of this Court moved this Court and, as such, filing of the writ petition by the learned Advocate cannot be considered as not
maintainable.
Mohammad Hosain Advocate Vs. Quamrul Islam Siddique & Ors. 10 BLT(HCD)-191
Article-102(2)(a)(i) read with
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section-154, 156 and 157
Report published in a newspaper
A direction can be given to the Director General of Bureau of An it Corruption for taking steps for holding investigation if it is found that there is an information of commission of a cognizable offence, but no such direction can be given on the basis of a
report published in a newspaper containing allegation of commission of cognizable offence because the above officer is not legally bound to hold investigation on the basis of such a report. Under Article 102(2)(a)(i) of the Constitution, the high Court Division may make an order directing a person performing any function in connection with the affairs of the Republic to do that which he is required by law to do. We have found that the Director General, Bureau of Anti-Corruption is not required
under any law to ask his officers to start investigation or to hold investigation on the basis of any report published in a newspaper, because such report is not an information within meaning of Sections-154, 156 and 157 of the Code.
Mohammad Hosain Advocate Vs. Quamrul Islam Siddique & Ors. 10 BLT(HCD)-191
Article-102(l)(2)(a)(i)(ii) read with
Trade Organisations Ordinance, 1994
Rule-3 Sub-Rule-8
There is violation of Rule 3 Sub-rule 8 of Trade Organisations Ordinance, 1994, i.e. non disposal of the writ petitioner’s application within time and not giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore there is violation of the principle of natural justice and that the writ petitioner has not been communicated till date about the late of his application officially, for which he could not take recourse to appeal as provided by Rule 3 Sub-Rule 10 of licence in favour of respondent No. 5 indicates rejection of the application of the writ petitioner but non communication of such rejection has prejudiced the petitioner inasmuch as it could not prefer appeal of registration and issuance of licence in favour of Respondent No 5 cannot be said to be bona fid or is in accordance with the provisions of law and there is violation of principle of natural justice.
Rice Mill Owners Association Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors. 10 BLT (HCD)-215
Article-102(l)(2)(a)
Purpose of Monitoring —environment and ecology of Bangladesh are being continuously endangered and threatened by various activities originating from private and public sources.
Held: In the prevailing situation in our view ad-interim directions are necessary.
Bangladesh Legal Aid & Service Trust & Ors. Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors. 10BLT (HCD)-297
Article-102
Natural Justice — Held : In view of the decision of the Appellate Division reported in 42 DLR (AD) 214 as well as of the decision of the writ petitioner No. 4897 of 1997 we find substance in the rule and accordingly we direct the respondents to communicate
the result of the review application of the petitioner which was heard on 16.06.1992 pursuant to notice dated 03.06.1992 (Annexure-I) if the petitioner’s application is still indisposed of the government may take step to dispose of, the said application for review by creating an appropriate Review forum within 3(three) months from the date of receipt of this order.
Shahidul Islam Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors. 11BLT(HCD)-152