Case No: Civil Petition For Leave to Appeal No. 1326 of 2010
Judge: Nazmun Ara Sultana,
Court: Appellate Division ,,
Advocate: Mr. Qumrul Haque Siddique,Mrs. Sigma Huda,Mr. Md. Taufique Hossain,,
Citation: 2 LNJ (AD) (2013) 39
Case Year: 2013
Appellant: Aysha Siddiqua
Respondent: Ms. Fazilatunnesa
Delivery Date: 2012-07-15
|Md. Muzammel Hossain, CJ.
Surendra Kumar Sinha, J.
Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah, J.
Nazmun Ara Sultana, J.
Syed Mahmud Hossain, J.
Muhammad Imman Ali, J.
Md. Shamsul Huda, J.
Voluntary Social Welfare Agencies (Registration and Control) Ordinance, 1961
It appears that all the three courts, on proper consideration of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record and also examining the relevant law held the concurrent view that none of the circumstances and conditions stated in section 9 of Voluntary Social Welfare Agencies (Registration and Control) Ordinance, 1961 was prevailing and in that circumstances the registration authority had no power to dissolve the existing governing body of the samity and to form an ad-hoc committee and as such the formation of ad-hoc committee and the subsequent election of the governing body held by that ad-hoc committee and also the said elected governing body of the samity were all illegal and, therefore, all the activities of that ad-hoc committee and the elected committee were illegal....(9)
For the Petitioner: Mrs. Sigma Huda, Advocate instructed by Mr. Md. Taufique Hossain, Advocate-on-Record.
For the Respondents: Mr. Qumrul Haque Siddique, Advocate instructed by Mr. Aftab Hossain, Advocate-on-Record.
Civil Petition For Leave to Appeal No. 1326 of 2010
This Civil Petition for leave to appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 25.03.2009 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.2944 of 2006 discharging the rule affirming the judgments and decrees of the trial court as well as of the appellate court.
The respondent No.l Ms. Fazilatunnesa, as plaintiff, filed Title Suit No. 132 of 1993 in the court of Senior Assistant Judge, Dumuria, Khulna against the present petitioners and others for declaration and mandatory injunction. The plaint case, in short, was that the Banachhaya Mohila Kallayan Samity was a Women Welfare Organization. The plaintiff was the first General Secretary and coordinator of the said samity since its incorporation in 1989. The said samity was registered under the Department of Women Affairs of the Government of Bangladesh and got government as well as foreign grants. The said samity was an autonomous body and had its own constitution. As per its constitution, there was a procedure for formation of General, Executive and Advisory Committees. But there was no provision for formation of any ad-hoc committee under that constitution. The General Secretary was authorized to convene any meeting. But on 14.06.1992 the District Women's Affairs officer most illegally convened an emergency meeting of the Executive Committee and formed an ad-hoc committee of five members with defendant No.l as president and defendant No.2 as general secretary. The formation of the said committee without election was illegal. The said illegal committee by holding a farce election on 28.11.1992 formed an Executive Committee, wherein the defendant No. 1 was shown as elected President, defendant No.2 as Vice President, defendant No.3 was shown as General Secretary and defendant Nos.6 and 7 were shown as members of the Executive Committee. That the said newly formed committee was absolutely illegal and the plaintiff was not bound by any decision taken by that illegal committee. That the plaintiff raised an objection against the activities of that illegal Executive Committee and as a result, at the initiative of the donors' association, an enquiry was held and the plaintiff was recommended to be kept as a non-voting member of the executive committee. That the defendant No.3 treating herself as General Secretary took steps for shifting the office of the samity to her own residence without the permission of the donors association which was also illegal. That the defendant No.l as the president of that illegal committee issued a letter on 03.03.1992 suspending the plaintiff and thereafter issued a show cause notice on AD # 9 (Forma No. 2.03.1993 for her dismissal on some false allegations, That the said notice was illegal as the defendant No.l had no authority to issue such show cause notice upon the plaintiff. That' the previous committee wherein the plaintiff was General Secretary was still in existence as per law and the defendant did not have any right to amend the constitution of the association. That the formation, activities and the orders passed by that illegal committee were all illegal and as such the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that she was still the General Secretary of the committee and also for mandatory injunction for her reinstatement to her previous office.
The defendant No. l and 3 contested the suit by filing written statement denying all the allegations made in the plaint. The material case of these contesting defendants was that Banachhaya Mohila Kallayan Samity was registered under Voluntary Social Welfare Agencies (Registration and Control Ordinance) 1961 (Ordinance No.XLVI of 1961) in the year 1989. That as per section 9 of that Ordinance No.XLVI of' 1961, the executive committee of any organization could be suspended and an ad-hoc committee could be formed and as per section 9(3) of the said ordinance the said ad-hoc committee would have power to run the organization. That since four members of the previous committee of Banachhaya Mohila Kallayan Samity resigned and the plaintiff was removed from the post of General Secretary for the mismanagement created by her in the samity an ad-hoc committee was formed and this ad-hoc committee held election on 28.11.1992 and the new executive committee was formed on 30.11.1992 with six members. Thereafter on 28.02.1992 this executive committee held its first meeting wherein the plaintiff was present. That plaintiff's son Kamrul Islam as the project co-ordinator of W.D.P. project obtained salary as well as house rent from the fund of the samity which was illegal. That the newly formed committee obtained a number of allegations against the plaintiff and accordingly a meeting was held on 28.02.1993 and a decision was taken to take action against the plaintiff and accordingly a show cause notice was issued against her and since her reply was not satisfactory the plaintiff was suspended from the office of the sarnity on 03.03.1999. Thereafter a show cause notice was served upon the plaintiff on 07.03.1993 and an enquiiy was held into allegations against the plaintiff and considering the report of the enquiry committee together with the unsatisfactory reply of the plaintiff, she was finally dismissed on 01.06.1993. That the suit was filed on false allegations and as such was liable to be dismissed with cost.
The trial court decreed the suit by the judgment and order dated 30.06.1996. The appellate court affirmed that judgment and decree of the trial court.
Being aggrieved the contesting defenda-nts preferred the above mentioned Civil Revision No.2944 of 2006 before the High Court Division and obtained rule. A Single Bench of the High Court Division, after hearing both the parties, discharged that rule holding that though under section 9 of Voluntary Socia Welfare Agencies (Registration and Control Ordinance), 1961 registration authority has got power to suspend the governing body and to form an ad-hoc committee of any such org organization but in the present case there was no circumstances as mentioned in this section 9 of this Ordinance of 1961 prevails; for suspending the governing body of the samitv and for forming an ad-hoc committee and as such the suspension of the governing body of the samity and the formation of the .ad-hoc committee was illegal and consequently all the activities of this newly formed illegal committee of the samity including removal of the plaintiff from the samitv were illegal.
Mrs. Sigma Hilda, the learned advocate M for the petitioner has made submissions to. the effect that since the previous commit of the samity failed to run the affair of the samity and there occurred serious mismanagement in the functions of the samity, the registration authority rightly suspended that committed and formed the ad-hoc committee in accordance with the provision of Vohmtorv Social Wei fan-Agencies (Registration and Control) Ordinance, 1961; that the registration authority was very much empowered to suspend the executive committee of the samity and to form ad-hoc committee under that provision of law and that for the greater interest of the organization and the beneficiaries, registration authority rightly suspended the executive committee and rightly formed per provision of law .the learned council has contended that the High Court Division as well as the courts below have committed serious error of law and without considering the legal aspects and without assessing the evidence on record properly: the learned advocate has argued to the effects also that if the impugned judgments of the courts below are allowed to stand this Banachhaha Mohila Kallayan Samity will be prejudiced seriously and the very existence of samity will be at stake.
Mr. Qumrul Haque Siddique, the learned advocate for the respondents has made submissions supporting the impugned judgment.
We have considered the submissions of the learned advocates of both the sides and gone through the impugned judgment of the High Court Division as well as those of the courts below.
It appears that all the three courts, on proper consideration of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record and also examining the relevant law held the concurrent view that none of the circumstances and conditions stated in section 9 of Voluntary Social Welfare Agencies (Registration and Control) Ordinance, 1961 was prevailing and in that circumstances the registration authority had no power to dissolve the existing governing body of the samity and to form an ad-hoc committee and as such the formation of ad-hoc committee and the subsequent election of the governing body held by that ad-hoc committee and also the said elected governing body of the samity were all illegal and, therefore, all the activities of that ad-hoc committee and the elected committee were illegal.
Considering the facts and circumstances and evidence on record we find no error in these concurrent findings of all the three courts below.
So, we find no merit in this leave petition and hence it is dismissed.