Hafez Md. Bilal Patwary @ Md. Billal Hossain Patwary Vs. Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretary, Dhaka

Appellate Division Cases

(Civil)

PARTIES

Hafez Md. Bilal Patwary @ Md. Billal Hossain Patwary……………Petitioner.

-Vs-

Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretary, Dhaka & others………. Respondents.

JUSTICES

Md. Ruhul Amin CJ

M.M. Ruhul Amin J

Md. Hassan Ameen J

Judgment 22nd July 2007

The Muslim Marriages & Divorces Rules, 1975, Rule 6(1)

Requiring him to show cause within seven days as to why his Nikah registry license should not be cancelled………………. (2)

It appears that the High Court Division perused the relevant file produced from the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs by the learned A.A.G. and on perusal of the same, the High Court Division found that there was on review application pending before the Ministry as claimed by the writ petitioner. The High Court Division also perused the enquiry report filed by the respondent No.2 wherein the writ petitioner admitted that he did not pass Alim examination at the time of his appointment but he did so after his appointment. The High Court Division accordingly observed that this is evident from the photocopy of the writ petitioner’s Alim Examination certificate……………. (5)

Rule 6(1) of the Muslim Marriages & Divorces Rules, 1975 provides that candidates seeking Nikah Registry license must have Alim, Fazil or the like certificate from a recognized Madrasa…………………… (6)

Md. Aftab Hossain, Advocate-on-Record. ………………For the Petitioner.

Zainul Abedin, Advocate-on-Record …………For the Respondents.

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 857 of 2004

(From the judgment and order dated 05.05.2004 passed by the High Court

Division in Writ Petition No. 3787 of 2003.)

JUDGMENT

M.M. Ruhul Amin J: This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.05.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 3787 of 2003 discharging the Rule.

2. Short facts are that the writ petitioner was appointed as Nikah Registrar on temporary basis for No. 9 Kankapoit Union under Police Station Chauddagram, District-Comilla on 27.07.1998. While he was discharging the functions as. Nikah Registrar of the said Union, the respondent No.3 issued notice dated 27.03.2002 requiring him to show cause within seven days as to why his Nikah registry license should not be cancelled. The writ petitioner duly replied to the same on 02.04.2004 wherein he stated categorically that his

educational certificates are genuine. Thereafter, vide memo dated 11.07.2002, the respondent No. 3 cancelled the Nikah registry license of the writ petitioner. He then filed a review petition on 01.08.2002 before the respondent No.l but did get any reply and thereafter moved the High Court Division in writ jurisdiction.

3. The High Court Division upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and considering the materials on record discharged the Rule.

4. We have heard Mr.Md. Aftab Hossain, the learned Advocate-on-Record for the

petitioner and Mr. Zainul Abedin, the learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondents and perused the judgment of the High Court Division and other connected papers.

5. It appears that the High Court Division perused the relevant file produced from

the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs by the learned A.A.G. and on perusal of the same, the High Court Division found that there was on review application pending before the Ministry as claimed by the writ petitioner. The High Court Division also perused the enquiry report filed by the respondent No.2 wherein the writ petitioner admitted that he did not pass Alim examination at the time of his appointment but he did so after his appointment. The High Court Division accordingly observed that this is

evident from the photocopy of the writ petitioner’s Alim Examination certificate.

6. Rule 6(1) of the Muslim Marriages & Divorces Rules, 1975 provides that candidates seeking Nikah Registry license must have Alim, Fazil or the like certificate from a recognized Madrasa.

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussions made above, we are of the view that the High Court Division upon correct assessment of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision. There is no cogent reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court Division.

8. Accordingly, the leave petition is dismissed.

Source : V ADC (2008),678

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.