Post-Election dispute

It is only the Election Tribunal which is competent to decide a post election dispute and that the Election Commission has no authority to decide such a matter. [Para-8]

Md. Saiful Islam Vs. Golam Kibria & Ors 8 BLT (AD)-65.

Section-29 and

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Order-41 Rule-14(3)

Dispensation of the service of notice.

Admittedly respondent Nos. 2-5 have not entered appearance before the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal. They are non-contesting respondents and in such a situation Order 41 Ruel 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure had given ample power to the High Court Division to dispense with the service of notice upon the non-contesting respondents which has been done by the High Court Division. The High Court Division though acted under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure they could have acted under Order 41(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This amendment it appears has escaped the notice of the learned Advocate who appeared on behalf of the respondent before the High Court Division and also of the said Division. In view of the clear provision of the Rule and in view of the fact that Section 29(1) of the Local Government (Union Parishad) Ordinance 1983 relates to issuance of notice in the election petition which has been done in the present
case we hold that no illegality and wrong has been committed by the High Court Division. [Para-6]

Md. Shahe Alam Vs. Golam Sarwar & Ors 8BLT (AD)-157

Local Government (Union Parishads) Ordinance, 1983

Section-24 read with The Union Parishad (Election) Rules, 1983


In the instance case there was contemporaneous allegations and report before the Election Commission about disturbance in those centres and the subsequent enquiry report established the allegations-we cannot but reiterate that if there are contemporaneous report or allegations about disturbance, ragging of ballot papers or election not being held justly, honestly and fairly then after being satisfied about the correctness of the report or allegations Election Commission would be justified to cancel the result of the election and direct
re-poll. But it would not be justified to cancel the result of election held peacefully on the basis of post-election allegations.

Noor Hossain Vs. Md. Nazrul Islam & Ors. 9BLT(AD)46


It is the consistent view of this Division that Section 20 of the Ordinance is not a mandatory one rather it is a directory in nature. In the instant case merely because of inclusion Mouza Haldermura in ward No.3 disturbing the territorial continuity it cannot be said that the impugned order of delimitation is violative of Section 20 of the Ordinance in that it is absolutely within the province of the Delimitation Officer to include a village in any ward taking into consideration all the 3 factors viz., territorial unity, administrative convenience and
distribution of population as far as practicable.

Abdul Wahab Chowdhurv Vs. Md. Abu Taher & Ors. 9BLT(AD)-233

Local Government (Union Parishads) Ordinance, 1983

Section-7(2)(g) read with

Local Government (Union Parishads) Amendment Act, 1993


On 4.1 1.1997 was the date fixed for filing Nomination paper. 5.1 1.1997 was the date for scrutiny of Nomination paper. Election was held on 17.12.1997. Admittedly, petitioner did not repay bank loan on 4.11.1997 and he repaid loan on 5.11.1997. Bank authority accepted the loan-Held: In view of the amended provision amending or omitting the words “or Nomination” it becomes unnecessary to embark upon an enquiry as to whether petitioner was defaulter on the day of filing Nomination paper. The intention of Legislature in bringing about amendment in Ordinance of 1983 by amendment act of 1993 was to disqualify a person from holding any public office when he stood as defaulter on the day of election and not on the day of presenting Nomination paper. The disqualification incurred a petitioner on the day of Nomination stood wiped out. annulled and obliterated on the day of scrutiny-petitioner did not incur disqualification for the election of the public office of Chairman of Union Parishad and his election stands valid.

Md. Shafiqul Islam Vs. Md. Imdadul Haque & Ors. 9 BLT(HCD)-235