Habiganj Pally Bidhut Samity Vs. Syed Tafazzul Islam & Ors.

Habiganj Pally Bidhut Samity (Petitioner)

Vs.

Syed Tafazzul Islam & Ors. (Respondents)

Supreme Court

Appellate Division

(Civil)

Present:

Syed J. R. Mudassir Husain CJ

Mohammad Fazlul Karim J

Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J

Md. Joynul Abedin J

Judgment

February 26, 2007.

Lawyers Involved:

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).

Judgment

                  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).

Ed.

Source: 16 BLT (AD) (2008) 152

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.