Article-102
No Locus Standi—the petitioners have falied to disclose any sufficient interest in the matter of appointment of the Judges in the Appellate Division. The petitioner are persons having least knowledge about the appointment and also have no personal interest and thus they are none but busybody. The fact remains that none of the prominent members of the Bar have ever come forward to challenge the appointment the newly appointed Judges of the Appellate Division which clearly indicates that the citizens at large and the members of the Bar in particular are not aggrieved. Admittedly two unknown and insignificant citizens have filed this petition and thus it is apparent and obvious that they have seized the opportunity and tiled this petition to catch the public eye and to come to prominence. The petition has been filed for their personal gain or private profits coupled with political motivation and other oblique consideration. By appointing the aforesaid judges in the Appellate Division no injury nor public wrong has been committed by the Government, as the appointment does not offend any provision of the constitution or any other law. In the instant case the affected parties are not coming forward for no visible reason. We therefore find and hold that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the instant application.
S.N. Goswami & Ors. Vs. Govt. of Bagnladesh & Ors. 11 BLT (HCD)-213
Article-102(2)(a)(ii)
Writ of Certiorari This writ lies only against the order of public authority. The object of certiorari is to prevent usurpation of jurisdiction by inferior tribunal, but it cannot issue as a cloak of appeal in disguise. Certiorari should issue as of right only for such applicant as has suffered an infraction of personal right.
S.N. Goswami & Ors. Vs. Govt. of Bagnladesh & Ors. 11 BLT (HCD)-213
Article-102(2)(b)(ii)
Writ of quo-warranto
Writ in the nature of quo-warranto is provided by Article 102 (2)(a) (ii) of the constitution. Quo-warrantois regarded as an appropriate and adequate remedy to determine right or title to a public officer and to oust one who has unlawfully usurped or intruded to such public office. Proceeding in quo-warranto against a public officer is for the purpose of deterring whether he is entitled to hold the office and discharge it’s function and quowarranto affords a judicial inquiry into such matter.
S.N. Goswami & Ors. Vs. Govt. of Bagnladesh & Ors. 11 BLT (HCD)-213
Article-102
Maintainability — 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 Write Petition is maintainable.
M/S Reliance Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Ors.11 BLT (HCD)-258.
Article-102 read with
Customs Act, 1969
Section-194(1)
The Petitioner has taken a ground of hardship and also has furnished a bank guarantee for the full account. The Commissioner of Customs being an appellate authority by exercising his statutory discretionary power could have accepted the appeal.
Ocean Trade Ltd Vs. Customs & Vat 11 BLT(HCD)-435.
Article-102
In the instant case it is noted that the Minister and the officials under the Ministry were under an implied duty to act in good faith and fairly listening to the concerned parties, for that is a duty lying upon everyone who decides anything before the
impugned cancellation the petitioner or the Managing Committee of the Madrasha should have been given a fair opportunity of being heard. It appears from Annexure-F the impugned memo that no reason has been assigned for cancellation of the
monthly payment order list.
Md. Abdul Aziz Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh Ors. (HCD)-272
Article-102
A show-cause notice does not violate any of the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizen by the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and as such no Writ Petition is maintain-able against a show cause notice.
Diplomat Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Customs & Ors 11 BLT (HCD)-303
Article-102
Pre-matured-—Held; As we find that no such demand of payment of money has yet been made by the respondent from the petitioner, she is at liberty to give reply to the show-cause notice on receipt of a copy of the investigation report. The
respondents are directed to supply a legible copy of the investigation report to the petitioner forthwith.
Diplomat Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Customs & Ors 11 BLT (HCD)-303
Article-102
Import and marketing of the foodstuff, “Mini Pack Lychee Jelly”
The report of the Public Health Laboratory of the Public Health Institute- In the report dated 28.01.2003 it is stated that result of the tests of “”Mini Pack Lychee Jelly” being satisfactory and no adverse comment found in the internet, taking of the jelly could be considered tit for human consumption subject to the caution printed on its label. Then, it records the comment
saying that in view of the Pure food Ordinance, 1959 and the Rules made under the Ordinance eating of the jelly is tit for human consumption.
Held: Order of the Ministry of commerce and the notification issued by respondent No.6 dated 02.05.2002 are hereby quashed.
Md. Kamrul Hassan & Ors Vs. Ministry of Commerce & Ors 11 BLT(HCD)-325
Article-102
Since the petitioners appointed on muster roll basis and on consolidated pay basis under the project were subsequently regularized and their posts adjusted against newly created regular posts, in our view cancellation of the regularization and adjustment orders by the same authority without assigning any reason and without giving them any opportunity of being heard is illegal and without any lawful authority.
Md. Rana Masud Vs. Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge Authority & Ors. 11 BLT(HCD)-328
Article-102
Legitimate expectation – In the instant Case the petitioners were never appointed as regular employees or officers of the DLSA but each of them were appointed to work for a period of 89 days and after 89 days, after some interval they were appointed for further period. In this way each appointment was only for maximum period of 89 days and we have also noticed that in each appointment it is clearly mentioned that the appointment is not an assurance for further absorption. So, knowing fully well
that there is no assurance for future absorption, the petitions accepted the job on daily wage basis the Petitioners have no legitimate expectation.
Md. Monjur Alam & Ors. Vs. Dhaka Electric Supply Authoritv. 11 BL T (HCD)-314
Article-102 read with
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Order 47 rule-1
Order Passed by Artha Rin Adalat — if any mistake is committed in passing any order under the provisions of CP. Code and in applying the provisions of the Code in execution proceedings, then which Court will correct that mistake or apparent mistake.
The trend of the decisions of this Court indicate and suggest that such mistake palpable of apparent or gross in nature may be corrected in appropriate eases to do justice and undo injustice by the Court having Civil jurisdiction by exercising its power both under section I 15(1) and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure but the constitutional court under article 102 in any view of the matter cannot exercise its power to correct mistake or error committed by the Artha Rin Adalat and there is no indication in the above cited cases, that the interlocutory order passed by the Artha Rin Adalat is amendable to the jurisdiction of this Division under Article 102 of the Constitution.
Agrani Bank Vs. Artha Rin Adalat & Ors. 11BLT(HCD)-432
Article -102 read with
Customs Act, 1969
Section -196 B
When order results from non-exercise of jurisdiction vested in a statutory body and is ex facie without jurisdiction, invoking of constitutional jurisdiction under article 102 of the Constitution is not barred. Moreover, when interpretation of a section of the
Customs Act. of public importance is sought for by making an application under article 102 of the Constitution such application cannot be said to be not maintainable notwithstanding the statutory remedy, even if any.
Bureau Veritas Bangladesh Ltd. Vs. The Appellate Tribunal. Customs & Ors. 11BLT (HCD)-316