Dr. Waliar Rahman Vs. Bangladesh and others, 50 DLR (AD)(1998) 26

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 165 of 1997

Judge: ATM Afzal ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mr. Khandaker Mahbuhuddin Ahmed,Muhammad Jamiruddin Sarkar ,,

Citation: 50 DLR (AD) (1998) 26

Case Year: 1998

Appellant: Dr. Waliar Rahman

Respondent: Government of Bangladesh and others

Subject: Jurisdiction of a Court,

Delivery Date: 1997-3-20

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
ATM Afzal CJ
Mustafa Kamal J
Latifur Rahman J
Md. Abdur Rouf J
Bimalendu Bikash Roy Choudhury J
 
Dr. Waliar Rahman
…………………. Petitioner
Vs.
Bangladesh and others
…………............ Respondents 
 
Judgment
March 20, 1997
 
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102
The High Court Division vacated the order of stay granted earlier and refused to grant stay any further, the matter relating to dispute between suspended Chairman and the acting chairman in respect of their performing the functions. Appellate Division generally does not interfere with such order passed by the High Court Division in exercise of discretion unless to prevent a perverse order. 
 
Lawyers Involved:
Jamiruddin Sirker, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mvi. Md Wahidullah, Advocate-on-Record- For the Petitioner.
Khandker Mahbubuddin Ahmed, Senior Advocate, instructed by Md. Aftab Hossain, Advocate-on-Record- For the Respondent No. 5.
Not Represented-Respondent Nos. 1-4.
 
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 165 of 1997.
(From the judgment and order dated February 18, 1997 passed by the High Court Division, Dhaka in Writ Petition No. 66 of 1997).
 
JUDGMENT
 
ATM Afzal CJ.
 
The petitioner, Chairman of Barabaria Union Parishad PS Chitalinari, District Bagerhat, was suspended by the Government by an order dated 1-12-96. He filed writ petition No. 66 of 1977 on 2-1-97 challenging the said order of suspension whereupon a Rule Nisi was issued and stay of the impugned order was also granted.

2. It appears that respondent No. 5, who was added in the writ petition on his prayer, filed an application for vacating the order of stay stating, inter alia, therein that in a meeting of the Union Parishad for electing an acting chairman held on 17-12-96 under the chairmanship of the Thana Nirbani Officer, Chitalmari he was elected as the acting chairman and he took over office since 21- 12-96 upon refusal of the writ-petition to hand over charge as directed by the Thana Nirbahi Officer  and has been carrying on the function of the  chairman since before the stay order was obtained.The High Court Division, by its order dated 18 February, 1997 vacated the stay order observing that the writ-petitioner had totally suppressed the fact that the acting Chairman had been functioning with effect from 24-12-96 and as such the order of become infructuous.

3. The writ-petitioner, it appears, filed another application for stay of the operation of the order of suspension dated 1-12-96 but the High Court Division upon noticing the facts stated application and referring to its own order rejected the application as redundant by its order February, 1997.

4. Mr. Zarniruddin Sirker, learned Counsel petitioner, seeking leave to appeal from the aforesaid orders dated 18-2-97 and 24-2-97 referred some papers showing that the writ-petition functioning as the Chairman of the Union Parishad even in February, 1997 and as such the High Court Division, he submits, was wrong in holding that the petitioner had obtained the stay order upon suppression of facts.

5. It is not for this Division to resolve dispute between the suspended Chairman (petitioner) and the acting Chairman as to who is actually in office. The High Court Division on the basis of facts placed before it vacated the order of stay granted earlier and further refused to grant stay upon a fresh application filed by the writ-petitioner. As a rule this Division does not generally interfere with such orders passed in the discretion of the Court unless to prevent a perverse order. The only prayer that the writ-petitioner can make now is to pray for an early hearing of the writ petition.

The petition is dismissed.

Ed.