Abu Taher Vs. Abdur Razzak and others, 47 DLR (AD) (1995) 160

Case No: Civil Petition for leave to Appeal No. 188 of 1995

Judge: Mustafa Kamal ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mr. Fazlul Karim,MR. Shamsul Hoque Siddique,,

Citation: 47 DLR (AD) (1995) 160

Case Year: 1995

Appellant: Abu Taher

Respondent: Abdur Razzak and others

Subject: Election Matter,

Delivery Date: 1995-6-1

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
ATM Afzal CJ
Mustafa Kamal J
Latifur Rahman J
 
Abu Taher
…………….……Petitioner
Vs.
Abdur Razzak and others
.............................Respondents
 
Judgment
June 1st, 1995.
 
Local Government (Union Parishads) Ordinance (LI of 1983)
Section 7 (2) (g)
The pendency of application of the petitioner elected as Chairman of Union Parishad for remission of normal and penal interest with the Bank as a loanee is no avail— his election was rightly declared void.
 
Lawyers Involved:
Md. Fazlul Karim, Senior Advocate instructed by M Nawab Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record ‑ For the Petitioner.
Shamsul Haque Siddique, Advocate‑on‑Record- For the Respondent No.1.
Not Represented ‑Respondent Nos. 2‑4.
 
Civil Petition for leave to Appeal No. 188 of 1995.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.94 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.3107 of 1993).
 
JUDGMENT
 
Mustafa Kamal J:
 
The petitioner submitted nomination paper for election to the office of Chairman of Cheora Union Parishad within PS Chowddogram, District Comilla on 7.12.91. His nomination paper was accepted on the date of scrutiny on 8.12.91 in spite of an objection filed by the contestant respondent No.1 on the ground that the petitioner defaulted in repaying loan taken by him from the Bangladesh Krishi Bank, Konkapati Bazar Branch. The election was held on 1.2.92 and the petitioner was elected as Chairman and the Gazette Notification was published on 3.3.92. Respondent No. 1filed Election Tribunal Case No.7 of 1992 before the Election Tribunal and Additional Senior Assistant Judge, Sadar, Comilla against the petitioner on the self‑same ground, namely, that he was a defaulter in the payment of the said loan on the date of submission of nomination paper and the petitioner contesting the case contended in his written objection that in repayment of the loan he deposited Taka 30,000.00 on 1.12.91 and Taka 20,000.00 on 18.12.91 and that he prayed for remission of normal and penal interest which was still pending with the Krishi Bank. By judgment and order dated 10.11.92 the Election Tribunal allowed the Election Case and declared void the election of the petitioner to the Office of Chairman. The petitioner took an appeal, Election Tribunal Appeal No.9 of 1992, before the District Judge and Election Appellate Tribunal, Comilla, who by judgment and order dated 28.8.93 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order of the Election Tribunal. The petitioner then unsuccessfully preferred Civil Revision No.3107 of 1993 and the High Court Division by judgment and order dated 12.12.94 upheld those of the Election Appellate Tribunal. Now this petition for leave to appeal by the petitioner from the said judgment and order of the High Court Division.
 
2. Mr. Md. Fazlul Karim, learned Advocate for the petitioner, reiterated the submissions made before the High Court Division, namely, that on the basis of the petitioner's application dated 2.12.91 to the Manager, Kondapati Bazar Branch of the Krishi Bank, the said Branch forwarded his application for remission of the normal and penal interest, in terms of the Circular issued by the Bangladesh Bank. The petitioner paid the principal amount due to the Bank and no demand has yet been issued to him by the Bank for realisation of the normal and penal interest for remission of which his application is still pending with the Krishi Bank. He is therefore not a defaulter as he has not defaulted in repaying any loan taken by him "within the time allowed by the Bank".
 
3. The submission is misconceived, as according to the petitioner himself he took a loan of Taka 25,159.00 on 25.1.83 from the said Branch of Krishi Bank and he was to pay back the loan amount in 10 instalments of Taka 2,516.00 each starting from 30.6.83 and ending with 30.12.87. He paid for the first time a sum of Taka 30,000.00 on 1.12.91 and he paid for the second time a sum of Taka 20,000.00 10 days after the date of scrutiny i.e. on 18.12.91. He was therefore a defaulter since 30.6.83. If, on or before 7.12.91, he had paid the entire principal amount of loan with interest, if asked for, and obtained a certificate from the Bank allowing remission of the remaining normal and penal interest on liquidation of all outstanding dues or if on payment of some outstanding dues he had obtained a re‑scheduling of re‑payment he would not have been a defaulter on 7.12.91; but as he did not pay even the principal amount in full on 7.12.91 he remained a defaulter on that day. The pendency of his application for remission of normal and penal interest with the Bank is of no avail to him. The High Court Division did not commit any illegality in upholding the judgment and order of the Election Appellate Tribunal.
 
The petition is dismissed.
 
Ed.