Md. Nasir Uddin Vs. Government of Bangladesh

Md. Nasir Uddin (Petitioner)

Vs.

Government of Bangladesh & Ors. (Respondents)

 

Supreme Court

Appellate Division

(Civil)

JUSTICE

Syed J. R. Mudassir Husain CJ

Mohammad Fazlul Karim J

Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J

Judgment dated : July 30, 2005.

Case Referred To-

51 DLR (AD) 152.

Lawyers Involved:

Abul Kalam Mainuddin, Advocate instructed by Mahbubur Rahman, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.

Nizamul Huq, Advocate, instructed by Md. Aftab Hossain, Advocate-in-Record-For Respondent No. 4.

Not Represented-Respondent Nos.1-3.

Civil Petition For leave to Appeal No.733 of 2005.

(From the judgment and order dated 10.4.2005 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 2154 of 2005).

JUDGEMENT

Mohammad Fazlul Karim J.- The writ petitioner seek leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 10.4.2005 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.2154 of 2005 rejecting summarily the application under Article 102 of the Constitution filed impugning Memo No.7 Bichar-7/2N-50/87(Part)(11)/132 dated 14.2.2005 issued under the signature of respondent No.2 giving approval to the appointment of respondent No.4 as Nikah Registrar on temporary basis for 7 Puti Bila Union Parishad under Lohagara Upazilla, District-Chittagong purported to have been appointed under Rule 5(1) of the Muslim Marriage and Divorces (Registration)Rules 1975 (vide Annexure-E to the writ petition) and on the basis of a letter in Memo No.1112(4) dated 20.02.2005 issued under the signature of respondent No.3 appointing the respondent No.4 as Nikah Registrar on temporary basis for No.7 Puti Bila Union Parishad, Lohagara Thana (Vide Annexure-E-1 to the writ petition) purporting to challenge second proviso to section 4 of the Muslim Marriage and Divorces (Registration) Act, 1974 and the Rule 10 of the Muslim Marriage and Divorces (Registration) Rules, 1975.

2. Mr. Abul Kalam Mainuddin, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Judges of the High Court Division failed to take notice that appointment of respondent No.4 curtailing the part of the petitioner’s area has been done without complying with the Rule 10 of the Muslim Marriage and Divorces (Registration) Rules, 1975 and as such the impugned judgment is bad in law and the same is liable to be set aside.

3. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as Nikah Registrar for the areas of 3 unions and that he has been acting as an agent of the Government in the matter of registering the marriage and realisation of the taxes for the purpose. The very appointment has not created no legal right in the said post inasmuch as Second Proviso to section 4 of the Muslim Marriage and Divorces (Registration) Act, 1974   and the Rule 10 of the Muslim Marriage and Divorces (Registration) Rule, 1975 has been considered and found to be valid by this Court in 51 DLR (AD) 152.

There is no substance in the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner.

The petition is dismissed.

Ed.

Source : 16 BLT (AD) (2008) 151

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.