Habiganj Pally Bidhut Samity (Petitioner)
Syed Tafazzul Islam & Ors. (Respondents)
Syed J. R. Mudassir Husain CJ
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J
Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J
Md. Joynul Abedin J
February 26, 2007.
Mrs. Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.
Nurul Islam Bhuiyan, Advocate-on-Record-For Respondent No.1.
Not Represented- Respondent Nos. 2-8.
Civil Petition For leave to Appeal No.1740 of 2006.
(From the judgment and order dated 31.8.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.751-5 of 2005).
Md. Joynul Abedin J. – This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.8.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.751-5 of 2005 making the rule absolute.
2. The fact briefly stated is that the petitioner was elected as the President of the Habiganj Palli Biddut Samity in the year 1993 and since then he had been successfully continuing as the President for the said Samity till 4.10.2005 when he was suddenly removed as the President by the impugned Memo dated 4.10.2005 without affording him an opportunity of showing cause in violation of section 4(VIII) of the Habiganj Palli Biddut Samity By Laws. The petitioner thereafter moved the High Court Division and the High Court Division by the impugned order dated 31.8.2006 made the rule absolute.
3. Mrs. Sufia Khatun, the learned Advocate-on-Record for the writ-respondent petitioner submits that the Rural Electrification Board being a statutory body has not been made party which is a necessary party in accordance with section 3(2) of Rural Electrification Board ordinance, 1977. She next submits that the High Court Division erred in law in failing to consider that since the writ petitioner was removed from his post in compliance with all the legal formalities as laid down in By-Laws of the Rural Electrification Board the order of removal was not liable to be interfered with. She lastly submits that the hearing of the rule was made on an off date which date was fixed for motion hearing only and the court after hearing the rule passed the judgment and pronounced the same on the same date without any information to the respondents.
Hence the respondents were prejudiced.
4. We are not impressed by the submissions of Mrs. Sufia Khatun, the learned Advocate-on-Record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the High Court Division upon correct assessment of the materials on record and appreciation of law arrived at a correct decision in the matter. The petitioner was not liable to be removed unceremoniously. There is therefore no cogent reason to interfere with the same. Further in any view of the matter, the Advocate for the respondents was under a legal duty to watch out or to arrange for watching the items appearing in the list regardless of their position.
The petition is accordingly dismissed (on merit and delay).
Source: 16 BLT (AD) (2008) 152