Project Director (at present In-Charge of Director) Vs. Ratan Kumar Das and others.

Project Director (at present In-Charge of Director), Tejgaon, Dhaka and another  (Petitioners)

Vs.

Ratan Kumar Das and others. (Respondents)

 

Supreme Court

Appellate Court

(Civil)

JUSTICES

MM Ruhul Amin CJ

Md. Tafazzul Islam J

Md. Abdul Matin J

Md. Abdul Aziz J

Judgment : April 27, 2009.

Case Referred To-

Kamml Hasan Vs. Bangladesh and others, 49 DLR (AD) (1997) 44.

Lawyers :

Mrs. Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-record- For the Petitioners.   

Md. Bashir Uddin Zindigir, Advocate (Appearing with the leave of the Court) instructed by Muhammad Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-Record- For the Respondent No. 1.                   

Not represented- For the Respondent Nos. 2-4.   

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 2070 of 2008.

(From the judgment and order dated 27tn August, 2008 passed by the Administrative   Appellate Tribunal in Miscellaneous Appeal No.2 of 2008)

Judgment

               MM Ruhul Amin CJ.- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27 August, 2008 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2 of 2008 rejecting the prayer for stay of further proceedings of the Execution Case No. 2 of 2007 now pending before the Administrative Tribunal No.1, Dhaka till disposal of the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2 of 2008.

2. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal on consideration of the materials on record rejected the prayer holding that there is no provision either in the enactment or Rule of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 for stay of any proceedings of the inferior tribunal.

3. We have heard Mrs. Sufia Khatun, the learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners and Mr. Md. Bashir Uddin Zindigir, the learned Advocate (appearing with the leave of the Court) for the respondent No.1 and perused the impugned judgment and order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal and the materials on record.

4. This Division in a number of cases held that the Administrative Tribunal is not a Court proper although it has all the trappings of the Court and as such cannot exercise all the judicial powers of the Court provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. In the case of Kamrul Hasan Vs. Bangladesh and others reported in 49 DLR (AD)(1997) 44 this Division held that sections 4 and 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act do not provide jurisdiction to the Administrative Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal to grant any interim relief in respect of a is pending before it for final adjudication.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal on proper consideration of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision.

The petition is dismissed.

Ed.

Source : 14 MLR (AD) (2009)157

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.