Representation of People Order

 

Representation
of People Order [PO No. 155 of 1972]


Article 4—

For
exercising and performing any powers or functions under this Order the Acting
Chief Election Commissioner must get authorisation from the Commission itself,
otherwise his action under the Order will be coram non Judice and without
jurisdiction.

Jatiya Party
vs Election Commission for Bangladesh and others 53 DLR (AD) 38.

 

Articles 12(1), 49 & 51—

Quo
warranto—A writ of quo warranto cannot be indulged in by a person to serve the
ulterior purpose of another individual.

Shaikh (Md)
Obaidullah Raihan vs Sayed Shahidul Haque Jamal and others (Spl. Original) 54
DLR 280.

 

Article 14(3)—

Where a
right or liability is created by a statute providing special remedy for its
enforcement such remedy as a matter of course must be availed of first.

Mahmudul
Haque (Md) vs Md Hedayetullah and others 48 DLR (AD) 128.

 

Article 31(2)(d)(e)—

The Tribunal
was justified in not excluding the ballot papers from counting which contained
a part of the official seal, because the law has not demanded in a mandatory
language the presence of a full seal on the ballot paper before its exclusion
from count.

Moulana
Delwar Hosain Saydee vs Sudhangshu Shekhor Halder and others 52 DLR (AD) 20.

 

Articles 31 & 36(4)—

The High
Court Division had no occasion to check the election material for themselves.
There is, therefore, no cause or reason for the High Court Division to make
some new observations on facts beyond what have been noted by the Tribunal.

Moulana
Delwar Hosain Saydee vs Sudhangshu Shekhor Halder and others 52 DLR (AD) 20.

 

Article 36(4)(i)—(iv)

The ballot
papers that are required to be excluded from the count are fully described in
Article 36(4) (i)—(iv) of the Order. These sub—clauses do not require that a
ballot paper is to be excluded from the count if it does not contain the Code
number or the signature or initial of the Assistant Presiding Officer.

Moulana
Delwar Hosain Saydee vs Sudhangshu Shekhor Halder and others 52 DLR (AD) 20.

 

Articles 44A, 44B, 73 & 74—

Since
Articles 73 and 74 entail penal sanction, proof of an offence under them needs·
to satisfy the criminal standard. This Court is not sitting in judgment nor
passing penal sentence on the violation of Articles 73 and 74. Any finding of
their violation in the context of the instant case can be said to be only
incidental. This Court is sitting to decide whether the provisions of Articles
44A to 44D have been infringed thus invalidating the election result. This
aspect being essentially a civil matter, the required standard of proof is
‘satisfaction on a balance of probabilities.’

Sudhangshu
Shekhor Halder vs Chief Election Commissioner and others 55 DLR 655.

 

Article 50—

When the
petitioner has impleaded all the necessary parties mere impleading of the
Returning Officer and the Assistant Returning Officer so as to say misjoinder
of these parties cannot by itself be a ground for holding that there was total
non­compliance of the provision of Article 50 of the Order.

Advocate Md
Abdul Hamid vs Md Fazlur Rahman 50 DLR 441.

 

Article 50—

When the
petitioner impleaded all the necessary parties the mere fact that some other
persons have been made parties in the election petition in itself cannot be a
ground for rejection of the election petition.

Advocate Md
Abdul Hamid vs Md Fazlur Rahman 50 DLR 441.

 

Article 50, 51(2) & 58 (a)—

Article 50
mentions the parties who are to be impleaded but does not prohibit impleading
of parties who may be considered by the petitioner to be proper parties. When
all necessary parties have been joined to the election petition, the joining of
the Returning Officer and the Assistant Returning Officers cannot itself be a
ground for dismissal of the election petition under Article 58(a) of the Order.

Advocate Md
Abdul Hamid vs Md Fazlur Rahman 50 DLR (AD) 80.

 

Articles 51 and 62—

In view of
the order of the Election Tribunal allowing the appellant’s petition in part,
the preliminary objection raised against maintainability of his appeal is
rejected.

SS Halder vs
Moulana Delwar Hossain Saydee and others 52 DLR 58.

 

Article 56—

The
Tribunal, if it thinks fit, may order personal appearance of the party before
the Court.

Al-Haj
Akhtaruzzaman Chowdhury (Babu) vs Mohammad Kabir and others 47 DLR 149.

 

Article 58(a)—

Joinder of
unnecessary parties and prayers cannot be considered fatal to the trial of an
election petition when there are necessary parties and prayers in that
petition.

Idrish Ali
Bhuiyan (Md) vs Dr Alauddin Ahmed and ors 55 DLR 19.

 

Article 62(3)—

The
provisions of the Code not inconsistent with the Order being made applicable to
Election Petition and the appeal being the continuation of the Election
petition, the provisions of the Code which do not bar dispensing with service
of notice to the non­-contesting parties are applicable to appeal arising out
of election petition.

Moulana
Delwar Hossain Saydee vs Sudhangshu Shekhar Halder and others 51 DLR (AD) 171.

 

Article 65—

An election,
in spite of some illegalities or irregularities, cannot be set aside unless it
is proved that the result of the election has been materially affected thereby.

Mahmudul
Islam Chowdhury vs Md Sultanur Kabir Chowdhury and others 47 DLR (AD) 161.

 

Article 65(a)—

For failure
of the Presiding Officer to take proper steps when Abdul Mannan did not show up
and when Shahidul Islam acted in his place unlawfully, the voters cannot be
disenfranchised and the candidates should not be penalised to go through the
motion of another polling particularly when there is absolutely no finding that
Shahidul Islam’s participation made a difference in the voting pattern or that
the appellant had a connivance in the matter or that he benefitted from an
illegality of which he had prior knowledge.

Moulana
Delwar Hosain Saydee vs Sudhangshu Shekhor Halder and others 52 DLR (AD) 20.

 

Articles 73(3)(a) & 73(4)—

The only
evidence in support of the allegation against the respondent has come by way of
oral evidence of the petitioner’s party men. It would not be prudent to take
such testimony at face value. Petitioner has not been able to prove the
respondent guilty of corrupt practice on the basis of the whole evidence.

Sudhangshu
Shekhor Halder vs Chief Election Commissioner and others 55 DLR 655.

 

Article 91A—

When the
Election Commission accepted the formation of the electoral committee which was
formed with the approval of the Supreme Court the petitioner has no cause to be
apprehensive about the formation of the committee.

Bangabir
Kader Siddiqui, BU vs Government of Bangladesh and ors 54 DLR (AD) 64.