Fazlur Rahman & 38 others Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others, 53 DLR (2001) 237

Case No: Writ Petition No. 850 of 1999

Judge: Mohammad Fazlul Karim ,

Court: High Court Division,,

Advocate: Mr. Abdur Razzaq,,

Citation: 53 DLR (2001) 237

Case Year: 2001

Appellant: Fazlur Rahman

Respondent: Government of Bangladesh

Subject: Constitutional Law,

Delivery Date: 1999-03-22

Supreme Court
High Court Division
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
 
Present:
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J
Md. Tafazzul Islam J
 
Fazlur Rahman & 38 others
….….……..Petitioners
Vs.
Government of Bangladesh and others
…………….Respondents
 
Judgment
March 22, 1999.
 
Muslim Marriages & Divorces (Registration) Act (LII of 1974)
Section 4
General Clauses Act (X of 1897)
Section 6(c)
With the introduction of the 2nd proviso to section 4 of the Muslim Marriages and Divorce Registration Act, 1974, rules for carrying out the purpose and object of the Act were amended and substituted from time to time. Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 has no application thereto as there was no repeal of any enactment. ……. (55)
 
Cases Referred To-
Kazi Md Amirul Islam Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Bangladesh and others 16 BLD (AD)110 ; Mostafa Kamal Moulvi Mohammad Khorshed Vs. Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, 50 DLR (AD) 82.
 
Lawyers Involved:
Abdur Razzaq, Advocate-For the Petitioners (In Writ Petition Nos. 2419 of 1998, 2037 of 1998, 2576, 2569. 1441, 2400, 1510 of 1998, 3342 of 1996, 19 of 1999, 4135, 2274, 1791, 2351/3424, 3716, 3822, 3313 of 1998, 124 of 1999, 3965, 2515, 2925, 3423, 3823, 3312, 3214, 3326, 3622 of 1998, 4946 of 1997 & 3029 of 1998).
Obaidur Rahman Mostafa with Md. Moshfiqur Rahman Khan, Deputy Attorney-Generals- For the Respondent No. 1. (In all above Writ Petitions).
 
Writ Petition Nos. 2419, 2037, 2568, 2576,1368, 1441,1811,4135,1140, 3494, 2400, 1510 of 1998, 3342 of 1996, 19, 124 of 1999, 2274, 1791, 2351, 3424, 3716, 3822, 3313, 3965 of 1998, 194 of 1997, 2515, 3592, 2925, 124, 3684
With
Writ Petition No. 850 of 1999
and
Writ Petition Nos. 1660, 3423, 3823, 3029, 3312, 3214, 3945, 3326, 3622 of 1998 and
Writ Petition No. 4946 of 1997.
 
JUDGMENT
 
Md. Fazlul Karim J.
 
1. These Rules are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by the Single Judgment as the common question of law and facts are involved.
 
2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.2419 of 1998 has impugned Memo No.375 Justice 712N-144177 dated 2-8-98 Annexure ‘A’ issued by the respondent No.2 to have been issued without any lawful authority stating, inter alia, that by the impugned order ward No. 5 of Mymensingh Pourashava has been curtailed unlawfully from the Nikah Registry area of the petitioner contrary to the provision of law and rules as the petitioner has been permanently appointed as the Nikah Registrar, for No. 2 Sankipara, No. 8 Akna Unions on 13-6-75 and for No.1 Kachijhuli, No.4 Nutanbazar and No.5 Amlapara Union of Mymensingh Pourashava. The Rule has been contested by filing affidavit-in-opposition by respondent No. 1 who denied all the allegations in the rule application stating, inter alia that the area has been lawfully curtailed as the respondent has authority under section 4 of the Muslim Marriages & Divorces (Registration) Act 1974 to extend, curtail or otherwise alter the limitation of any area for which a Nikah Registrar has been licensed by the Government. The petitioner presently is the Nikah Registrar of Ward Nos.1, 2 & 3 of Mymensingh Pourashava in accordance with the requirement of the laws and the rules.
 
3. The respondent No.4 filed affidavit-in- opposition denying the allegations in the Rule application and asserted that the curtailment was lawfully done and respondent No. 4 was legally appointed Nikah registrar for the curtailed area.
 
4. In Writ Petition No. 2037 of 1998 the Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why the Review Petition dated 28-12-97 (Annexure ‘D’) should not be disposed of expeditiously stating, inter alia, that the petitioner was a permanent Nikah Registrar for Ward Nos.15, 16, 17 of Dhaka City Corporation which were subsequently renumbered as Ward Nos. 46, 47 and 48. Upon the allegation of solemnisation of marriage of a minor couple notice was issued to him to show cause as to why his licence shall not be revoked. The petitioner showed cause but ultimately the licence was revoked by a notification dated 1-12-93. Whereupon the petitioner filed a review application before the respondent on 28-12-93 under Rule 8(6) of the Muslim Family law. During the pendency of the review petition when he has been functioning as a Nikah Registrar he came to know from a reliable source that ward No. 47 has been taken out of his jurisdiction by an office order passed on 1-7-98 and respondent No.4 has been temporarily appointed Nikah Registrar for that ward (The copy of which is annexed as Annexure-F). Though the petitioner as Nikah Registrar is entitled to retain a minimum of 3 wards, the respondent has illegally taken away the ward No. 47. The Rule has been contested by the respondent No. 1 denying the allegation in rule application and asserting, inter alia that the petitioner was never a permanent Nikah Registrar for ward Nos. 46-47 and 48 but his appointment was of temporary nature and due to misconduct in discharge of his duty his licence was revoked following the procedure provided under law and, as such, the statement/assertion m an application for review was denied and the concerned authority never received the same, The petitioner could not show any paper that the said review application ‘as ever filed or the order of revocation was ever stayed or after the revocation he was appointed afresh or that his review application is still pending. The petitioner also has not taken any step during the last 5 years after revocation of his licence. Any alleged functioning of the petitioner as Nikah Registrar is wholly unauthorised and illegal and alleged deposit of money in the treasury does not make the petitioner a Nikah Registrar. It is not the District Registrar but the Government respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are the authority to grant licence to Nikah Registrar or revoke the same. The Government never withdrew the order revoking the licence of the petitioner. Any alleged letter by the District Registrar terming the petitioner as Nikah registrar of Rayer Bazar could not revalidate the revoked licence. The respondent No.4 has been appointed Nikah Registrar for ward No.47 as the petitioner was not the Nikah registrar. So the question of taking away of ward No.47 from the jurisdiction of the petitioner does not arise and no such review petition was ever filed or still remaining pending.
 
5. The respondent No.4 is contesting the Rule denying the allegation in the rule application and supported the assertions of respondent No.1.
 
6. The petitioner in Writ Petition No, 2568 of 1998 has challenged impugned Memo No. 347/1(8) Justice-7/2N- 116/87/dated 21-7-98 Annexure ‘A’ issued under the signature of the respondent No.2 as should not he declared to have been made without lawful authority and of no legal effect stating, inter alia, that No.15 Maitvanga and No.16 Sharikaite Unions have been curtailed unlawfully from the Nikah Registry area of the petitioner. As the petitioner was appointed Nikah Registrar for 7(seven) Unions including curtailed unions so he is entitled to continue, as such for the whole area of the 7 Unions.
 
7. The said Rule was contested by the respondent No 4 denying the allegation and stating, inter alia that under the provisions of law the Government is entitled to extend, curtail or otherwise alter the limit of any area of Nikah Registrar and as such the curtailment of Union No.5 Maitvanga and No.16 Sharikaite Unions have been done lawfully and in accordance with law and rules and has appointed the respondent No.4 as the Nikah Registrar for those area. The petitioner being an agent entitling himself to the commission was not entitled t any show cause notice prior to curtailment of the area from his original area.
 
8. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.2576 of 1998 has impugned memo No.326/1(6) Justice 7/2n-4/95 dated 16-7-98 (Annexure ‘A’ to this petition) issued under the signature of the respondent No. 2 as to why it should not be declared to have been made without lawful authority and of no legal effect. In an application under Article 102 of the Constitution the petitioner has stated, inter alia, that by impugned order No. 4 Chirpara and No.5 Shialkati Unions have been curtailed unlawfully from the Nikah Registrar area of the petitioner although the petitioner is a permanent Nikah Registrar for the whole of Kawkhali PS consisting of 5 Unions including curtailed Unions. The said Rule has been contested by the respondent No.4 denying the allegation in the rule application stating, inter alia that the Rule has amended the local limit of the Nikah Registrar in a city corporation or pourashava to a maximum of 3 wards and in other areas to a maximum of 3 Unions. That accordingly under law the curtailment was made appointing the respondent No.4 as Nikah Registrar for the curtailed area.
 
9. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1368 of 1998 has impugned order under Memo No.145/1(4) B ichar-7/2N- 100/86 dated 30-4-98 Annexure ‘H’ issued by the respondent No.1 stating, inter alia, in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution that he was appointed Nikah Registrar for the entire Shayampur Union Parishad on 19-10-94. But Dania Portion of the Union has been curtailed from the said Union and new Dania Union was set up on 16-6-94 appointing the respondent No.4 as a Nikah Registrar. The petitioner has submitted that after the establishment of the Dhania Union Parishad by the notification as aforesaid Writ Petition No.1620/94 was filed challenging the delimitation of Shyampur Union Parishad. Thereafter when the schedule of the election of the Dania Union Parishad was declared the petitioner filed another Writ Petition being No.1040 of 1995 challenging the schedule but in spite of that the respondent has appointed the respondent No.3 as the Nikah Registrar for Dhania Union. The said Rule was contested by the respondent No.3 denying the allegation in Writ petition stating, inter alia. that the Dhania Union Parishad was set up by notification dated 7-5-94 taking some part of Shyampur Union Parishad and the petitioner was appointed Nikah Registrar on 19-10-94 for Shyampur Union Parishad only and, as such, he could not claim to be the Nikah Registrar for Dhania Union Parishad as the respondent No. 3 was appointed as the Nikah Registrar in accordance with law.
 
10. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1441/98 has challenged the impugned memo No.131 -Justice-7/2n-05/87(part) dated 6-4-98 Annexure ‘A’ stating, inter alia, in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution that the curtailment of No.8 Noakhola Union from the petitioner’s area has been done illegally as the petitioner is the sitting permanent Registrar for the 3 Unions of Begumganj Police Station and Noakhola Union of Chatkhil Police Station. The said application has been resisted by the respondent No.4 denying the allegations in rule application stating, inter alia, that the Sub-rule (2) of rule 10 of the Muslim Marriages Dissolution Registration Rules, 1975 having been substituted by amendment dated 31-12-97, the curtailment was done in accordance with law. It is further stated that the respondent No.4 has been lawfully appointed as a Nikah Registrar for the said area in accordance with law.
 
11. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1811 of 1998 has impugned orders contained in Memo No. 265-B ichar-7/2N-96(part) darted 16-6-98 Annexure ‘D’ and Memo No.2162/7 dated 23-6-98 Annexure D(1) and Memo No. 223-Bichar-7/2N- 20/76 dated 7-6-98 Annexure E’ and Memo No. 2047/7 dated 10-6-98 Annexure-E(1) and Memo No.51 Bichar-7/2N-297 dated 11-2-98 Annexure F and Memo No.482(7) dated 12-2-98 Annexure F(1) issued by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively as have been issued without lawful authority stating, inter alia, in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution that the petitioner was granted licence as Nikah Registrar for all the wards of Khilgaon Union and Rajarbag. Union under Dhaka City by the Chairman of the said Unions. The petitioner was also granted licence as Nikah Registrar for East Tejgaon, West Tejgaon, Nowabpur, Dilkusha and part of Kamalapur Unions. The Government also appointed the petitioner as Divorce Registrar for the said Unions with the coming into operation of Muslim Marriage and Divorce (Registration Act 1974) and the petitioner was granted licence as Nikah Registrar for the aforesaid area. After reconstitution of the area into wards of the Dhaka Municipal Corporation, the petitioner was given ward Nos. 59, 61, 62,64, 65, 66 and 67. Subsequently ward No. 58 was taken away in exchange of Ward No. 59. The Ward Nos. 59, 61, 62 and 64 to 67 were subsequently re-constituted as wards Nos. 36, 35, 23, 57, 53, 54 and 55. By Annexures A, A(1) and A(2) the petitioner was appointed for Khilgaon, Ramna and Rajarbag Unions which were converted as ward Nos. 59, 61, 62 and 64. The respondent No.2 has curtailed the area of the petitioner by taking away wards No. 33 from his area subsequently as well the respondent has curtailed the area of the petitioner by taking away wards No. 35 and 36 from the petitioner and appointed the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as Nikah Registrars. The petitioner has submitted that he is entitled to continue as the Nikah Registrar of the said curtailed area as well until the attainment of 65 years. The rule has been contested by one of the newly appointed Nikah Registrars, the respondent No. 5, denying the allegations in the rule application stating, inter alia, that the curtailment was made legally and the respondent No. 5 was given ward No.35 to Act as the Nikah Registrar for the area.
 
12. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.4135 of 1998 has impugned Memo No. 8057(7) dated 20-9-98 Annexure-A issued under the signature of respondent No. 3 as to why it should not be declared to have been made without any lawful authority and of no legal effect stating, inter alia, in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution that by the impugn Memo some parts of Santahar (Ka) and the whole of Santahar (Kha) Unions presently constituting the Santahar Pourashava has been curtailed unlawfully from the Nikah Registry area of the petitioners as the petitioner has been appointed as Nikah Registrar for the 7 Union Parishads including the curtailed area.
 
13. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1140 of 1998 has impugned Memo Nos. Justice 7-2N 71/74 dated 11-1-98and memo No. 52/6 dated 25-1-98 Annexure-B and B (1) respectively to have been issued without lawful authority in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution stating, inter alia. that he was appointed as temporary Nikah Registrar for Nos.1-4 and 6-7 Unions in Total 6(six) Unions under Police Station Mithapukur in the District of Rangpur on 258 1986 by the Government of Bangladesh Subsequently the Government approved the curtailment and alteration of the limits of the area by appointing respondents No.5 and 6 as Nikah Registrars for the curtailed areas contrary to the provision of law and without giving him an opportunity of being heard.
 
14. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.3494 of 1998 has impugned memo. Justice-412/7/2N- 2)87 dated 13-8-98 and memo No. Justice 430/-7/2N-2/87 dated 20-8-98 as Annexure ‘B and ‘B (1)’ respectively to have been issued without any lawful authority in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution. The petitioner was appointed as temporary Nikah Registrar for Nos.1-3 wards in Haragach Pourashava under Police Station Kaunia District-Rangpur and total Sarai Union on 23-10-96 by the Government of Bangladesh. But the respondents have curtailed the limit of the area i.e. ward No.2 and appointed the respondent No. 5 as temporary Nikah Registrar, Similarly, the respondents also curtailed ward No.1 and appointed the respondent No.6 as its Nikah Registrar contrary to the provision of the law and rule.
 
15. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2400 of 1998 has impugned memo No.329-Justice-7/2N- 93/81 dated 10-7-98 Annexure A issued by the t respondent No.2 to have been issued without any lawful authority in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution. The petitioner has moved this court stating inter alia, that the petitioner was temporarily appointed as the Nikah Registrar for No.10 Ghanua Union under PS and District Feni. That No.9 Lemua Union of Feni Sadar Thana is contiguous to Union No.10. The petitioner was allowed temporarily to perform the function of the Nikah Registrar for Lemua Union. But on 7-9-95 the petitioner challenged the general notification for appointing one Nikah Registrar for one Union in Writ Petition No. 2184 of 1995. Subsequently without giving information or opportunity Union No.9 was curtailed from the marriage registrar of the petitioner and respondent No.4 has been appointed as its Nikah Registrar.
 
16. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1510 of 1998 has impugned memo No.185 Justice 7/2N 39/94 (part) dated 25 5 1998 Annexure A issued under the signature of the respondent No. 2 as should not be declared to have been made without lawful authority in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution. The petitioner was permanently appointed as Nikah Registrar for all the Unions of Jhkargacha PS District Jessore But without giving any information whatsoever or without giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard, the area of Jhikargacha was curtailed and was given to respondent No. 4 as its Marriage Registrar contrary to provisions of law and rule.
 
17. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3342/96 has impugned Memo No. 546-Justice 712N-170 dated 14-11-93 Annexure ‘A issued under the signature of Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice as should not be declared to have been made without any lawful authority in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution. The petitioner was appointed as Nikah Registrar for 6 Unions namely, No. 6 Baralekha, No. 8 Dakhin Bhag (North). No. 9 Shuzanagor, No. 10 Dakhin Bhag (south) No. 11 Jun (West) and No.12 Jun (East) Butthe area of No.10 Dakhin Bhagh (South) No. 8 Dakhin Bhag (North) and No. 9 Shuzanagar Unions area were curtailed from the petitioner’s area illegally and without any opportunity to show cause.
 
18. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.19 of 1999 has impugned memo being Memo No 210 Justice 7/2N 14 1/80 dated 4-6-98 Annexure A as have been issued without any lawful authority whereby the area of No.1 Hazratpur has been curtailed from the Marriage Registrar of the petitioner and temporarily appointed one Abdul Kaiyum, as its Nikah Registry contrary to the provision of rule. The said application has been resisted by the respondent No.4 stating, inter alia, that the curtailment was done in accordance with law and the respondent No. 4 has been appointed as the Kazi for the said area.
 
19. The petitioner in Writ Petition No 124 of 1999 has impugned Memo No. 2964 dated 1-12-98 Annexure A as to why it should not be declared to have been made without any lawful authority in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution stating inter alia that the respondents have illegally curtailed No.11 Tetli and No. 14 Lalabazar Unions of Sylhet Sadar from the petitioner’s marriage Registrar illegally as he was appointed Nikah Registrar for 5 Unions of Sylhet Sadar including the curtailed area.
 
20.The petitioner in Writ Petition No.2274 of 1998 has impugned memo No.320 Justice 7/2N 30/84 dated 15-7-98 Annexure-A to have been issued by the respondent No.2 without any lawful authority in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution alleging the illegal curtailment of Ward No.10 of Dhaka City Corporation from the Marriage Registry of the petitioner and appointing the respondent No.4 as marriage registrar as he was appointed permanent marriage registrar for the areas including the curtailed area The said application has been resisted by the respondent No.1 denying the allegations and stating inter alia that the curtailment was done in accordance with law and rule and the respondent No. 4 was lawfully appointed as the Marriage Registrar of the curtailed area in accordance with law. The respondent No.4 has contested the Rule by filing an affidavit-in- opposition adopting the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No.1 stating, inter alia, that he was legally appointed as a Marriage Registrar for the curtailed area in accordance with law having requisite qualification inasmuch as the petitioner was given option/choice on 24-5-98 to work as the Nikah Registrar for ward Nos.7, 8 and 9 of the Dhaka City Corporation and on receipt of the option letter the respondent has curtailed ward No.10 from the area of the Nikah Registrar of the petitioner in accordance with option. By suppression of facts the petitioner has moved the application and obtained the Rule.
 
21. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1791 of 1998 has impugned memo No.247(5) dated 13-5-98 Annexure-A in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution challenging the appointment of respondent No.3 as Nikah Registrar of No.4 Annadanagar Union withdrawing the additional charge of Nikah Registrar of the petitioner in respect of No.4 Annadanagar Union alleging, inter alia, that he having been appointed after the coming into operation of 5A on 27-2-94 and continued as such for more then 2(two) years was not liable to be removed from his Additional Charge which amount to cancellation of the licence of the petitioner for the said No. 4 Annadanagar Union.
 
22. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2351 of 1998 has impugned memo No. 266-Justice-7/2N- 138/86 dated 26-6-98 Annexure ‘A’ issued by respondent No.2 as should not be declared to have been taken without lawful authority in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution whereby No.2 Ahmedabad and No.3 Dewragach Unions have been curtailed unlawfully from the Marriage Registry area of the petitioner and appointing the respondent No.4 as the marriage registrar thereof and the same have been made without lawful authority as the petitioner was temporarily appointed as Nikah Registrar for 10 unions including the said curtailed areas on 3-12-86 and subsequently was permanently appointed as Nikah Registrar for the Unions namely, Gazipur, Ahmedabad, Dewragach. Paikpara and Shankhole Union Parishads.
 
23. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.3424 of 1998 has impugned Memo No.2414/1(4) dated 25-10-98 Annexure A issued by the respondent No.3 as should not be declared to have been made without lawful authority in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution whereby No.16 Moglaba Union was curtailed from the petitioner’s area of Marriage Registry and respondent No.4 was appointed as the marriage registrar, as the petitioner was appointed as Nikah Registrar for other areas including the said curtailed area on 26-6-93 in accordance with the provision of law and rules.
 
24. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.3716 of 1998 has impugned the memo No.1291 (6) dated 21-10-98 Annexure A issued under the signature of respondent No. 3 as should not be declared to have been made without lawful authority stating inter oils, in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution that the petitioner was permanently appointed Nikah Registrar for No.16 Goalbari Union under PS Kulaura District Sylhet on 9-3-85, 5 Unions namely, No.11 Sharifpur. No.12 PrithimpashasNo13 Karmada, No.14 Fultala and No.15 Sagarnal under Kulaura PS have been annexed to his registrar. But by the impugned memo ward No.12 of Parithimpasha Union has been unlawfully curtailed from the Nikah Registrar area of the Writ Petitioner without any opportunity of being heard.
 
25. The Rule has been contested by the respondent No.4 denying the allegation stating, inter alia, that the authority is empowered to alter, curtail or extend the limit of area and, as such, curtailment has not violated any provision of law. The petitioner is still the Nikah Registrar for 5 Unions a1thougl under the amended provision of law he is entitled to 3 Unions only.
 
26. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3822 of 1998 has impugned memo No.756 (2) dated 8-10-98 Annexure A, in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution stating, inter alia, that the respondents have illegally curtailed No.5 Fulgazi Union from the jurisdiction of the petitioner without giving any opportunity as the petitioner was permanently appointed for the Union No.5 Fulgazi and Chittala Unions. The said Rule has been contested by the respondent No.4 stating, inter alia, that the alleged curtailment was not done in violation of law or rules and the respondent No.4 was lawfully appointed as Nikah Registrar for the said No.5 Fulgazi Union and, as such, the Rule is liable to be discharged.
 
27. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.3313 of 1998 has impugned Memo No. 877(10) dated 13-10-98 Annexure-A stating, inter alia, in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution that by the impugned Memo No.877(10) dated 13-10-98 under the signature of the respondent No.3 by which Madla Union has been curtailed unlawfully from the Nikah Registry area of the petitioner although the petitioner was licensed for Sultangonj, Lahiripara, Sheikhercola, Shakharia, Rajapur and Maykira including the Madla Union by a licence dated 9-9-86 The Rule has been contested by the respondent No.4 denying allegations in the application stating, inter a that the curtailment was done in accordance with law and respondent No. 4 was lawfully appointed as the Nikah Registrar.
 
28. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3965 of 1998 has impugned memo No.509(6) dated 5-10-98 Annexure A. Memo No.530(6) dated 8-10-98 Annexure-A(1), Memo No. 535(2) dated 11-10-98 Annexure-A(2), Memo No. 541 dated 12-10-98 Annexure-A(3) and Memo No. 570(9) dated 2-11-98 Annexure A(4) stating, inter alia, in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution whereby No.6 Gangachara, No.7 Gazghanta, No.2 Khaleya Alam Biditar, No.4 Kolokonda and No.10 Nohalia Unions have been curtailed from the permanent Nikah Registrar of the petitioner contrary to the provision of law as the petitioner was appointed for the whole of Gangachara PS consisting of 9 Unions. The said Rule has been contested by the respondent Nos.4-8 filing affidavit denying allegations and stating, inter alia, that the curtailment of the areas for the original Registrar was done in accordance with law, as the petitioner was given charge of the curtailed area on ad hoc basis inasmuch as the petitioner is not a resident of the area and the respondent Nos.4-8 have been lawfully appointed for the curtailed area in accordance with law.
 
29. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.194 of 1997 has impugned Memo No.377-Bichar-7/2N- 96/94 dated 10-12-95 Annexure-B stating, inter alia, in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution that the petitioner was appointed as Nikah Registrar for Noaria and Duara Bazar under PS Chatak whereby the petitioner became Nikah Registrar for Duara Bazar, East Duara Bazar, South and Noaria Unions. While acted as such the respondents have illegally curtailed Duara Bazar South and Duara Bazar South from the jurisdiction of the Marriage Registry. In the Rule by order dated 8-7-97 Mr. ATM Musa, Senior Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs was directed to explain as to why a proceeding for contempt of Court should not be started for violation of the order dated 7-1-97 of this court and to file an explanation within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order.
 
30. Said contemner filed affidavit begging unconditional apology for unintentional mistake as the application for appointing Nikah Registrar was pending before the Ministry since before his joining in the said Ministry on 16-1-97 and was not aware of the Rule Nisi and the order dated 7-1-97, since it was never communicated to him, otherwise, he would never put his signature as section-in-charge in the appointment letter. On being informed the authority directed to cancel the order of appointment which he has cancelled by order dated 3-8-97. The explanation having been found satisfactory, unconditional apology was accepted with a caution to be careful in future.
 
31. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2551 of 1998 has sought for a direction upon the respondent why they shall not be directed to grant permanent licence to the petitioner under rule 5A of the Muslim Marriages and divorces (Registration) Rules 1975 for the Manda and Dakshingaon Unions under PS Sabujbag, District-Dhaka in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution stating, inter alia, that the petitioner was appointed on 1-6-88 as temporary Nikah Registrar for Dhakingaon, Nandipara and Manda Moula under Sabujbagh Police Station District-Dhaka and has completed 2 years as temporary Nikah Registrar before the commencement of the said new Rule 5A whereupon the Zilla Nikah Registrar advisory committee recommended to the respondent No.1 to grant permanent licence for the said area. But the respondents are withholding granting of the said licence to the petitioner. The petitioner put an application for amendment sought to incorporate Nandi Para Union as well in the prayer portion.
 
32. In Writ Petition No.3592 of 1998 Rule was issued calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why the impugned proceeding of show cause notice vide Memo No.31 Bichar 7/2N-79185 dated 13-7-98 passed by the respondent No.2 should not be declared to have been made without any lawful authority In an application under Article 102 of the Constitution the petitioner has asserted inter alia that the petitioner was granted licence on temporary basis for Gandavapur Union Parishad No.9 in Hajiganj Police Station and by the same letter District Registrar was asked to make a panel urgently through Advisory Committee within 30 days for appointment of permanent Nikah Registrar. The date of interview was fixed on 25-10-95. But no notice was received by the petitioner in time for which he could not appear in the said examination as one Abdul Razzaque in collusion with officers has prevented the petitioner from receiving the said notice The petitioner meanwhile sent his certificate of Dakhila Alim Fazil and Kamil But on the plea of interpolation the same were not considered If there was interpolation that has been done by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in collusion with the officials. The petitioner being aware of the collusion filed the petition to the Government denying the allegation but in spite of that on 5-3-98 the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why licence should not be revoked or suspended. The Rule has been contested by filing an affidavit-in-opposition at the instance of the respondent No. 5 denying the allegations and stating, inter alia, that the Writ Petitioner was appointed temporary Nikah Registrar No. 9 Gandavapur Union Parishad by Memo dated 4-4-94 issued by the respondent No. 2 and simultaneously District Registrar, Chandpur was directed to prepare a panel through Advisory Committee for grant of permanent licence of Nikah Registrar and to send the same immediately to the Ministry. District Registrar accordingly published a public notice in the newspaper on 24-7-95 inviting application from the candidates fixing 15-8-95 as last date of submitting application. The respondent No. 5 submitted the application on 12-8-95. On 12-10-95 District Registrar issued interview cards to the candidates including the petitioner asking them to appear before the Advisory Board on 25-10-95 but in spite of service of notice the petitioner did not appear and the Advisory Committee after scrutiny of papers and interview selected the respondent No.5 as the permanent Nikah Registrar and sent the panel to the Ministry on 19-11-95. Meanwhile one Md. Golam Mostafa filed an application before the District Registrar against the petitioner that he had fraudulently acted as Nikah Registrar of the Union before his appointment, habituated to corruption and irregularities in solemnising and registering marriages and divorces and harassing the simple illiterate public. Whereupon an inquiry was held on 27-7-96 giving the petitioner an opportunity to defend and found that the petitioner has interpolated his Dakhila certificate, has also acted as a Nikah Registrar prior to his appointment and also did not appear before the Advisory Board and found him guilty of misconduct. The Registrar accordingly on 10-9-96 sent the report to the Ministry with the recommendation to revoke the temporary licence of the petitioner the respondent No. 2 thereupon issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence should not be revoked. The petitioner showed cause and the Ministry not being satisfied with the reply/show cause revoked the temporary licence of the petitioner by memo dated 13-7-98 the petitioner has also filed Title Suit No. 25 of 1998 on 7-9-98 against the impugned order which is pending for hearing. The petitioner having failed to obtain ad interim order filed the instant writ application suppressing the fact and obtained the Rule and the order of stay
 
33. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2925 of 1998 has impugned Memo Nos. 488-Justice-7/2N-27/75 dated 8-9 490-Justice-7/2N-27/75 dated 8-9-98 and 492-Justice-7/2N-27/75 dated 9-9-98 (Annexure-C, C(1), C(2) respectively issued by the respondent No.2 as to why should not be declared to have been made/issued without any lawful authority. It was stated, inter alia, that the petitioner was permanently appointed Nikah Registrar for 4 Unions namely Enayet-Nagar, Kashipur, Kutubpur and Fatullah. But the impugned orders have curtailed Kutubpur, Kashipur and Enayet Nagar Unions from the Nikah Registrar area of the petitioner illegally. The Rule has been contested by the respondent No.4 denying the allegations in the application and stating, inter aim, that the curtailment of Kashipur and Enayet Nagar Unions have been lawfully done. The petitioner has been discharging the duties of Marriage Registrar of Fatullah only. The respondent has been lawfully appointed Nikah Registrar of Kutubpur Union in which he is functioning as a Nikah Registrar. The Rule has also been contested by the respondent No.5 denying the allegation and adopting the assertions by respondent No.4 and stating, inter alia, that this respondent No. 5 has been lawfully appointed as Nikah Registrar for Kashipur Union as the petitioner has surrendered the Kashipur Union by retaining Fatullah, Kutubpur and Enayet Nagar Union. The Rule has also been contested by the respondent No.6 denying allegation of the application and stating, inter alia, that he has been lawfully appointed as Nikah Registrar for the area for Enayet Nagar Union.
 
34. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.124 of 1998 has impugned memo No. Bichar 7/2N-90180 dated 7-1-98 issued by the respondent No.2 canceling the temporary appointment of the petitioner as Nakah Registrar for No.16 Mohammadpur Union in district Noakhah and No.14 Bhatara Union under Police Station Chatkhil and re appointing the respondent No.5 as temporary Nikah Registrar for the aforesaid areas stating inter alia that when post of Nikah Registrar No.16 Mohammadpur and Bhatara Union become vacant the respondent No.4 recommended the appointment of the petitioner for those Unions since he was Nikah Registrar of the adjoining Union No.15, Badalkot. After his appointment the respondent No.5 Md Harun-or Rashid was alleged to have tampered with his appointment letter and made false representations to different authorities for ulterior motive. When the allegations came to the notice of the Ministry of Law the latter investigated the matter and report was submitted that the respondent No. 5 in order to satisfy his heinous personal interest made material alterations in his original appointment letter whereupon his licence was cancelled and appointed the petitioner temporary Nikah Registrar for those Unions along with his existing one. Petitioner has been discharging his duties. The respondent No 2 by memo dated 4-1-87 with a copy to the petitioner has stated that Government has reconsidered the matter and decided to re-instate the respondent No. 5 to the post of Nikah Registrar for No.16 Mohammadpur Union by the impugned order. The petitioner has further alleged that in spite of the recommendation of the Advisory Committee an 2-11-93 that the petitioner be given permanent appointment as Nikah Registrar for Nos. 14-16 Batara and Mohammadpur Union but the respondents have not yet been given said appointment illegally. The Rule has been contested by the respondent No.5 denying allegation in the Rule application stating, inter alia, that the petitioner himself being a Junior Nikah Registrar of another area i.e. No.16 Badalkot has lodged false complaint against the respondent No.5 in respect of his academic career and certificate with malafide motive to the respondent No.1 and wrongfully started a proceeding against the respondent No.5 canceling temporarily his licence. Whereby the petitioner managed to obtain temporary licence for the said area of the respondent No. 5 being No.16 Mohammadpur on 5-1-74 and No.14 Batara Union on 10-1-74. After such cancellation the petitioner filed false representation to the Ministry and the latter directed the respondent No.5 to submit his original certificate of Dhakhil and Alim examinations which were accordingly filed on 19-11-96. The Ministry respondent No.1 after thorough examination and inquiry as to the complaint found that the allegations are totally false, fabricated, baseless, mala fide and restored his licence by letter dated 4-1-97. Again, there was complaint whereupon the respondent No.5 submitted the Alim certificate but meanwhile the Ministry again issued letter dated 12-2-87 canceling the Nikah Registrarship and ultimately by the impugned order the petitioner was restored to his original post. The petitioner by denying the allegation has filed an affidavit-in-reply reiterating his statement made in the application.
 
35. The petitioner in Writ Petition No 3684 of 1998 has impugned the order in memo No. Justice- 712N-61/77 communicated by respondent No.2 appointing respondent No.5 as Nikah Registrar of Mugchar Union under PS Kotwali District Faridpur Vide Annexure—P dated 24-4-98 stating, inter alia, that the petitioner was appointed Nikah Registrar of Krishna Nagar Union Parishad on 8-3-69 and was also appointed as such for Kanaipur Union Parishad on 28-3-73 and Char Madhabdia Union on 23-5-74 and on 9-2-79 was also appointed for Isan Gopalpur, Mazchar and Kaijuri. While he was functioning as such without issuing any notice the area of Mazchar was curtailed by the impugned order appointing the respondent No. 5 on ad hoc basis as the Nikah Registrar for Mazehar Union. Previously same respondent appointed one Md. Jalaluddin as marriage registrar for Issan Gopalpur Union which was challenged in Writ Petition and the Rule is pending and during the pendency of the Rule the respondent again appointed one Md. Abdur Rahim as the Nikah Registrar of Kaijuri Union whereupon the petitioner moved Writ Petition No. 2760 of 1998. The petitioner filed another Writ Petition being No.850 of 1999 challenging Memo No. 635 Bichar-7/2N-91/82 dated 21-10-98 curtailing Atghar and Sonapur Union of PS Nagarkanda, District Faridpur from the jurisdiction of the petitioner and appointing respondent No.6 as Nikah Registrar of those unions in place of the petitioner. The petitioner filed another application under Article 102 of the Constitution being Writ Petition No. 850 of 1999. Upon hearing of the application no order was passed as meanwhile this court fixed bunch Cases on the subject and point of fact and law to be heard and decided to dispose of the same by the same judgment governing other Writ Petitions. The said application has impugned Memo No.635-Bichar-7/2N-91/82 dated 31-10-98 issued by the respondent No.2 curtailing Atghar and Sanapar Unions of PS Nagar Kanda, District Faridpur and appointing respondent No. 6 as Nikah Registrar of those two unions stating, inter alia, that the petitioner was appointed Nikah Registrar for Vacal Catti, Salte (at present Ramkandapur) Sonapur and Atghar Unions. But by impugned order the respondents have curtailed Atghar and Sonapur Unions from the marriage registrar area of the petitioner and appointed respondent No.6 as the Nikah Registrar contrary to the provision of law and rules.
 
36. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1660 of 1998 has impugned order under Memo No. 3777(6) dated 30-12-97 Annexure ‘D’ and the order under Memo No.1059/6 dated 8-3-98 Annexure-E issued by the respondent No.2 appointing the respondent Nos.3 and 4 as temporary Nikah Registrar and under memo No. 243 Bichar-7/2N-160/80 dated 10- 6-98 Annexure-E(1) as to why it should not be declared to have been made without lawful authority stating, inter alia, that the petitioner was appointed Nikah Registrar of Subhadya, Teghoria, Shekta, Kalindi, Zinjira Ruhitpur, Basta and Aganogar Union Parishads under Keranigonj. The Government thereafter has taken away Sekta, Teghuria and Ruhitpur Unions and created a new union known as Aganagar Union on taking certain areas from Subhadya and Zinjira Unions. While the petitioner was continuing as the Nikah Registrar of Subhadya, Kalindi and re-organised Aganagar Union, the respondent No. 2 issued order dated 30-12-97 curtailing Subhadya Union and appointing temporarily the respondent No. 3 as its Marriage Registrar. The respondent No. 2 thereafter again appointed respondent No. 4 as the Marriage Registrar of Aganagar Union on temporary basis by order dated 8-3-98. The respondent No. 1 thereafter issued memo dated 10-6-94 curtailing Kalindi Union from the area of the petitioner and gave the same to respondent No. 4. The aforesaid curtailments were done contrary to the provision of law and rules. The petitioner, however, by an application for amendment prayed for deleting the memo dated 30-12-97 Annexure-D and striking out the name of respondent No. 3 from the rule application which was, however, allowed striking memo in Annexure ‘D’ and the name of respondent No. 3 from the cause titles of the Rule application.
 
37. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.3423 of 1998 has impugned memo No.1136 (6) dated 15-10- 98 Annexure ‘A’ issued by respondent No.3 to have been issued without any lawful authority stating, inter alia, that the ward Nos.4 and 5 Tongi Pourashava have been curtailed unlawfully from Nikah Registry area of the petitioner who has been licensed to be the permanent Nikah Registrar for all the 14 wards of the then Tongi Union by a license/appointment dated 15-3-68 under the signature of the Chairman of the Tongi Union Council. In addition the petitioner was permanently appointed Nikah Registrar for the then Dakhin Khan and Gacha Union on 1-8-1970. Later on Dakhin Khan and Gacha Union have been taken away from the petitioner whereupon the petitioner moved this court in writ jurisdiction which is awaiting disposal. The petitioner has been appointed permanent Nikah Registrar for all the 7 wards of Tongi Pourashava and entitled to continue to be Nikah Registrar of all wards.
 
38. In Writ Petition No.3823 of 1998 Rule was issued to show cause as to why the impugned memo No.730(2) dated 28-9-98 and the memo No.736(2) dated 29-9-98 Annexure-A’ and A(1) issued under the signature of respondent No. 3 should not be declared to have been made without lawful authority stating, inter alia, that ward Nos.1 and 2 of No.18 Begumgonj Union and No.19 Mirwarishpur Union respectively have been curtailed unlawfully from the Nikah Registrar area of the petitioner who has been temporarily appointed Nikah Registrar for the ward No. 4 Reasulpur village of No.7 Bazra Union under Union Begumganj Upazila ward No.1 and 2 of No. 13 Jirtaili Union, ward Nos.1 and 2 of No.18 Begumgonj Union, ward Nos.1 and 2 of No.19 Mirwarishpur Union, Ward No.1 of No.26 Kadirpur Union, the whole No.20 Naruttam Union, No. 23 Rasulpur Union and No.24 Hazipur Union on 24-5-86 who by operation of law is deemed to be the permanent Nikah Registrar for those areas, and is entitled to continue as such.
 
39. Writ Petition No. 3029 of 1998 was issued calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why the impugned memo No. 524-Justice-7/2N-96/(part-t) dated 17-9-98 Annexure-A issued by the respondent No.2 should not be declared to have been made without any lawful authority stating, inter alia, that ward No.41 of Dhaka City corporation has been curtailed unlawfully from the Nikah Registrar area of the petitioner who was granted licence to be the Nikah Registrar on 18-11 -84 for part area of the then Mirpur Pourashava and Kalshi Union which became wards No.1, 2, 9, 10, and 11 of Dhaka City Corporation which has subsequently been reconstituted as wards No. 2, 4, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 41 of Dhaka City Corporation. The petitioner has further alleged withholding of the granting of the permanent licence to the petitioner for the said area notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner is deemed to be a permanent Nikah Registrar under Rule 5A.
 
40. The respondent No.4 has contested the Rule denying the allegations and stating inter alia, that in order to cope with the ever increasing population of the area of the marriage registrar and to provide the unemployed educated persons, under the provision of existing law and rules, ward No.41 has been curtailed and appointed the respondent as its Nikah Registrar.
 
41. In Writ Petition No. 3312 of 1998 Rule is against the impugned Memo No.602 -Justice-7/2N- 23/98 dated 13-10-98 Annexure-A issued by the respondent No.2 in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution by which Ali Akbar Deil, North Dhurang and South Dhurang Unions have been curtailed unlawfully from the Nikah Registrar area of petitioner who was permanently appointed for North Dhurang, South Dhurang, Lemshikhali, Keyarbil, Boraghop and Ali Akbor Deil Unions under PS Kutubdia, District-Cox’s Bazar and two other Unions of adjacent Moheshkhali PS. The petitioner not having retired or his licence being cancelled resulting in vacancy is entitled to continue as such. The respondent No.1 Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, filed affidavit-in-opposition denying the allegations in Rule application and stating, inter alia, that under the second proviso to section 4, the Government is entitled to curtail or otherwise alter the area for which the petitioner was licensed and in accordance with law the part of the area namely, 3 Unions have been curtailed. In view of the aforesaid provisions the earlier appointment was not valid and the petitioner did not acquire any vested right to remain as the Nikah Registrar in view of the curtailment which has been done in accordance with law.
 
42. The respondent No.4 also contesting the Rule denied the assertion of rule application adopting statements made by the respondent No.1 stating, inter alia, that the Government has the authority/competence to curtail area of the petitioner in accordance with law and rules and lawfully appointed respondent No. 4 as the Nikah Registrar.
 
43. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.3214 of 1998 has impugned Memo No.3220(9) dated 22-9-98 Annexure-B issued by respondent No.3 as to why it should not be declared to have been made without any lawful authority stating inter alia that the impugned order has illegally curtailed No 10 Barrah Union unlawfully from the Nikah Registrar area of the petitioner as he is the sitting Nikah Registrar of Kalakopa Bandura Jantraial Barrah and Schelea Unions under PS Nawabgonj District Dhaka and is entitled to continue as such until he has retired or his licence has been revoked in accordance with the rules.
 
44. The petitioner in Writ Petition No 3326 of 1998 has impugned Memo No 517 Justice 7/2 3/96 dated 16-9-98 and the Memo No. 518—Justice 7/2N-3/96 dated 6-10-98 Annexure-A and A(1) respectively to have been issued without any lawful authority stating enter alia that the impugned order has unlawfully curtailed Shoulpara and Dhomsar Unions and Chandrapur, Binodpur and Mohammadpur Unions respectively from the Nikah Registrar area of the petitioner as the petitioner has been temporarily appointed Nikah Registrai for the whole area of Palong PS District Shariatpur consisting of eleven (11) Unions including the curtailed areas and being appointed as Kazi under Kazis Act of 1880 (Act XII of 1880) was entitled to act as such until his retirement or removal upon cancellation of the licence resulting in vacancy of the office.
 
45. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.3622 of 1998 has impugned Memo No.377-Justice 7/2N-56/83 dated 2-8-98 and the Memo No.56/83 dated 510-98 Annexure A and A(1) respectively issued by respondents No.2 in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution whereby the respondents have illegally curtailed Dhipur and Aril Beligaon Unions respectively from the Nikah Registry area of the petitioner who has been appointed as Nikah Registrar for 5 Unions namely, Betka, Sonerang— Tongibari Outshalia Arial Baligaon and Dipur under PS Tongibari, Munshiganj and, as such, entitled to act accordingly until the age of retirement or the office has fallen vacant consequent upon the cancellation of his licence.
 
46. The petitioner in Writ Petition No 4946 of 1997 has impugned memo in Annexure A being No. 133 Justice 7/2n 2/97 dt 6-7-97 in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution whereby the impugned order conveyed the approval of the Government to the appointment of respondent No.4 on temporary basis as Nikah Registrar of ward No.52 of Dhaka Municipal Corporation and directed the respondent No.3 to issue licence to the respondent No.4 for the said Ward. The petitioner was first permanently appointed as Nikah Registrar for wards of union council of Dhanmondi bearing Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 dated 16-7-1961 and upon conversion of the aforesaid areas of Union Council into Town, Committee namely, the Dhanmondi Town Committee, the petitioner was re-appointed as Nikah Registrar of all wards of Dhanmondi Union Committee on 12-11-1963. The said ward subsequently became wards Nos. 12, 13, 14, 18,19,20 and 69 for which the petitioner was afresh appointed Nikah Registrar on 31-10-84; ward No. 20 was subsequently renumbered as ward No.52 on 11.12.93. The petitioner has been continuing to be Nikah Registrar of all the aforesaid wards in accordance with law and rules. The said curtailment has been do contrary to the provision of law and rule,
 
47. The respondent No.4 contested the Rule filing affidavit-in-opposition denying the allegations and stating, inter alia that curtailment was done in accordance with law and rules and the respondent No. 4 has been legally appointed as the Nikah Registrar.
 
48. Mr. Abdul Razzaque the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits, inter alia, that in view of the appointment of the petitioners either under provision of Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961 or under the provision of Muslim Marriage and Divorce (Registration) Act, 1974 for the area of their Marriage Registry the alleged curtailment of the part of the area from the existing Jurisdiction has been done contrary to the provision of law and rules for the purpose inasmuch as sub-rule (2) of the rule 10 of the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Rules, 1975 provides that unless the Nikah Registrar is retired or his licence is revoked under the provision of law the Nikah Registrars appointed for the area are legally entitled to continue as such. The learned Counsel has further submitted that section 4 of the Muslim Marriage and Divorce (Registration) Ordinance of 1982 provides for unfettered right to the Government to make discretionary and arbitrary orders in curtailing area for which licence has already been granted to act as Nikah Registrar. The learned Counsel has further submitted that in view of the provision of sub-rule (2) of the rule 10 providing continuance in office of a Nikah Registrar until he is retired or his licence has been revoked, a vested right has been created in favour of the petitioners, which cannot be taken away acting under the amended proviso to section 4 of the Act. The learned Counsel has further submitted that some of the Nikah Registrars having been appointed as Nikah Registrar under section 2 of the Kazis Act. 1980, the amended provision of section 4 of the Act, 1974 does not affect his vested right to function as Nikah Registrar for the whole area. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the vested right which accrued to the petitioner upon his appointment as a Nikah Registrar cannot be taken away by retrospective effect of the amendment.
 
49. Mr. Garib Newaz along Mr. Tariqul Hakim, the learned Counsels appearing for the petitioners, have submitted with reference to rule 5A that a Nikah Registrar though appointed temporarily for a certain area and having completed two years as such, the Government is obliged under the law to issue licence of permanent Nikah Registrar. The learned Counsels have further submitted that curtailment of the area without any notice to the Nikah Registrar having been done contrary to the principle of natural Justice is not sustainable in law, inasmuch as, a permanent Nikah Registrar is not liable to be disturbed in respect of the areas unless he is retired or that his licence is revoked in accordance with law.
 
50. Mr. Obaidur Rahman Mostafa, the learned Deputy Attorney-General with reference to section 4 together with the existing rule 10, has submitted that on and from first of December of 1997 the rule having been framed for giving effect to the provision of law authorising the Government to alter, curtail or otherwise extend the area of the Marriage Registrar, the impugned orders curtailing the area of any particular Marriage Registrar and appointing afresh a marriage registrar for the said curtailed area has been done in accordance with the provision of said law and rules. The learned Deputy Attorney-General has further submitted that although Rule 5(1) provides procedure for selection for candidates and most of the petitioners having been appointed temporarily do not become permanent Nikah Registrar unless there is grant of permanent licence of Nikah Registrar in accordance with law and inasmuch as Rule 5(1) is subject to rule 10 as to areas of the Nikah Registrar and upon scrutiny of the qualification, certificate and records by the advisory committee and upon satisfactory performance during the period of the temporary licence and, as such, upon commencement of Rule 5A Nikah Registrar appointed temporarily does not automatically become a permanent Registrar.
 
51. Mr. Md. Fazlul Karim, the learned Counsel, has submitted that the rule 10 having been substituted from time to time the provision of repeal of the enactment provided in section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act has no application.
 
52. In the backdrop of the aforesaid submissions it appears that the Bengal Act I of 1876 namely, the Bengal Mohammadan Marriages and Divorces Registration Act, 1876 has provided provision for the voluntary registration of marriages and divorces among Mohammdans, under section 3 thereof. It was lawful for the Provincial Government to grant a licence to any person being a Mohammadan authorising him to register Mohammadan marriages and divorces which have been effected within certain specified limits on an application being made to him for such registration and in like manner it shall be lawful for the Provisional Government to revoke or sustain such licence, provided that not more than two persons shall be licensed to exercise the said function within the same limit. Thus the Government was authorised to grant licence to any person to register Muslim marriages and divorces within certain specified limit.
 
53. By Kazi Act of 1880 the Government was empowered to appoint one and more Kazis for such local area as the Government may think fit for solemnising the marriages or performance of any rite or ceremony. With the introduction of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, section 5 thereof provided for granting licence by the Chairman of the Union Parishad for the local area to act as the Marriage Registrar. The said provision of section 5 has been omitted by Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Act of 1974 (LII of 1974) providing section 4 thereof that for the purpose of the registration of marriages, the Government shall grant licence to such number of persons, to be called Nikah Registrars, as it may deem necessary, for such areas as may specify, provided that not more than one Nikah Registrar shall be licensed for any one area. The Muslim Marriage and Divorce Registration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1982 which came into force on 1st December, 1992 amended the said section 4 introducing a proviso that provided further that the Government may whenever deems fit so to do extend, curtail or otherwise alter the limit of any area of which a Nikah Registrar has been licensed. Under section 14 thereof, Rules have been framed for carrying out the purpose of the said Act being Muslim Marriages and Divorce (Registration) Rules, 1975 providing for proceedings including Jurisdiction in rule 10 whereby it has provided area for which a Nikah Registrar may be licensed shall be the whole area of a Pourashava or 5 to 10 constituencies of a Municipal Corporation or 5 to 10 Unions as may be recommended by the Advisory Committee. The said rule 10 has further been substituted by notification dated 14, December, 1982 providing the area a Nikah Registrar may be licensed shall be:
 
(a) in the case of Municipality;
(i) if it is under a Municipal Corporation not more than the areas of five wards;
(ii) if it is in a district headquarter, not more than the area of eight wards; and
(iii) if otherwise, not more than the areas to which that Municipality extends; and
(b) in other Cases, not more than the area of 10 Unions;
The said provision has further undergone substitution by notification dated 19-1-93 providing that the area for which a Nikah Registrar may be licensed shall be:
(a) in the Case of a Municipal Corporation, 2-4 wards
(b) in the Case of other Municipalities, 3-5 wards; and
(c) in other Cases, 3-5 Unions.
 
In sub-rule 10(2) it has been provided that the provision of sub-rule (i) shall not affect the area of a Nikah Registrar licensed immediately before the commencement of that sub-rule until he is retired or his office otherwise falls vacant. The said rule has further been substituted by notification dated 30 December, l997 providing as under:
 
10. Jurisdiction.- The area for which a Nikah Registrar may be licensed shall be:
(a) in the Case of an area under a City Corporation or Pourashava not more than 3 wards.
(b) in the Case of other areas, not more than 3 unions.
 
54. In view of increasing number of; populations and widening delimitation of the Paura Corporation Municipal area and Unions incorporating more areas/wards and in order to facilitate registration of marriages and divorce which are increasing day by day, the legislature has amended the provision of Act, 1974 incorporating in 2nd proviso to section 4 as above mentioned and in order to carry out the purposes of the Act has framed rules and substituted rule 10 being the jurisdiction of each Nikah Registrar for effective easy and smooth registration of the marriages and divorces in any particular area.
 
55. With the introduction of the said 2nd proviso to section 4 of the Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Act of 1974, rules for carrying out the purpose and object of the Act were amended and substituted from time to time. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 has no application thereto as there was no repeal of any enactment. In the present Case there has been amendments/substitution to effect the jurisdiction of the Nikah Registrar area and such amendment/substitution can not be put at par with the repeal of a statute with or without a saving clause, The 2nd proviso to section 4 authorises the Government to extend, curtail or otherwise alter the limit of any area for which a Nikah Registrar has been licensed. Rule 10(2) of the Rules 1975 as amended in 1995 provides for the area for which a) Registrar may be licensed in the case of Municipal Corporation, three to four wards, in the ruse of other Municipal Corporations three to five nards and in other cases, three to five unions, but rule 10(2) operates as a stumbling block in the exercise of power under 2nd proviso to section 4 of he Act as although said section empowered the government to extend, curtail or otherwise alter the limit of any area of a Nikah Registrar, the said power can not be exercised in respect of the Nikah Registrar licensed immediately before the commencement of the sub-rule until he is retired or is office has otherwise fallen vacant. This anomaly in the sub-rule (2) can he answered by resorting to the rule of interpretation that the rule having been framed to carry out the purpose and object of the Act it self, if operates as a block and as such the rule to that extent is void and accordingly sub-rule (2) rule 10 of the Rules of 1975 must be held to be void. In other words where there arises controversy between the power of rule making authority and that of the legislature, it is the rule of construction of the statute that the enactment shall control the rule. Thus the rule making authority could not exceed its power in derogation to the power of legislative enactment. The Appellate Division in the case of Kazi Md. Amirul Islam Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Bangladesh and others reported in 16 BLD (AD) 110 where the petitioner was appointed as Nikah Registrar of Shiraj pur, Char Purbali and Char Hazar Unions but government declared some parts of those Unions to urban area to form as part of Basurhat Pourashava for which the Government subsequently decided to issue licence to the Nikah Registrar and asked the petitioner as to whether he would like to continue to exercise jurisdiction as Nikah Registrar within the three Unions or to act as such for Basurhat Pourashava and the petitioner opted for the three Unions. But he challenged the order of the Government dated 19-12-93 appointing respondent No. 4 a Nikah Registrar for Basurhat Pourashava in the areas which had been previously part of the aforesaid three Unions referring rule 10(2) of the Muslim Marriages and Divorce (Registration) Rules, 1975 as amended by notification dated 19-1-93 and on the submission of the learned Advocate-on-record that in view of the provision of Rule 10(2) of the Muslim Marriages and Divorce (Registration) Rules 1975 as amended on 19-1-93 the petitioner was entitled to exercise his jurisdiction as Marriage Registrar for the area which were previously part of the aforesaid three Unions until he is retired or his office otherwise falls vacant, it was held that the learned Judges of the High Court Division elaborately discussed Rule 10 of the Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Rules, 1975 as amended and rightly held that the Government had the power to alter, extend, curtail or otherwise alter the limits of any such Union for which a Nikah Registrar has been licensed to exercise his jurisdiction. The learned Judges further rightly held that there is no dispute that the Government is competent to curtail the jurisdiction of any Union and declare any part of it as an ‘Urban area’ and thereafter include the said area in a Paurashava and, as such, the territories of the above three Unions have been curtailed lawfully and included within the Bashurhat Paurashava which cannot be considered as parts of those three Unions and the petitioner therefore, cannot claim to exercise his jurisdiction over the areas of the aforesaid three Unions which have been included within the Bashurhat Pourashava. As such, there is no substance in the contention of the learned Advocate-on-Record. The petition is dismissed.’ The judgment by the Appellate Division was delivered dated 14-1-96. When sub-rule 10(2) was in force but though the Appellate Division did not declare the same as ultra vires of the Act instead, ignored the same. Similarly in a subsequent decision in the case of Mostafa Kamal Moulvi Mohammad Khorshed Vs. Secretary Ministry of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, reported in 50 DLR (AD) 82 on a fact the Government by order dated 25-10-95 appointed respondent No.5 Md. Rabiul Haque Patwary as Nikah Registrar in respect of newly constituted Amjadhat Union within Fulgazi Union by curtailing under section 4 of the Act of 1974 the Nikah Registry area of the petitioner who challenged the same alleging his appointment as Nikah Registrar in respect of 4 Unions including Amjadhat Union in 1991 and under sub-rule 10(2) such curtailment of area from his Nikah Registrar is not permissible and being a Nikah Registrar is entitled to work for such area including Amjadhat Union until he retires or his office otherwise falls vacant, held in the similar manner that the second proviso to the said section 4 has empowered the Government to extend, curtail or otherwise alter the limits of any area for which a Nikah Registrar has been licensed whenever the Government deems fit to do so. The decision further held that the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that such curtailment of area from the Nikah Registrar area of the petitioner amounts to revocation of his licence so far Amjadhat Union is concerned is not acceptable inasmuch as it is not a Case of revocation of licence contemplated in rule 8 of the Rules. It is a Case of curtailment of Nikah Registration areas under section 4 of the Act. Rule 10(2) was taken notice of while delivering the judgment on 20th November, 1997. The Government has further substituted the entire Rule 10 including 10(2) on 31 December 1997 by the present Rule which does not contain any provision like sub-Rule 2 of Rule 10 and provided that the area for which a Nikah Registrar may be licensed shall be in the Case of an area under a city corporation or Pourashava not more than three wards; and in the Case of other areas, not more than three Unions. The impugned orders in the rules under consideration are almost all of the dates after the present amendment in 1997. The Nikah Registrars were appointed either temporarily or permanently to register the marriages for and on behalf of the Government. They register the marriages/divorces for or on behalf of the Government in the specified area of their jurisdiction. Although they were issued licenses their position are no a better than those of the licensee in respect of land or building and licence thus issued confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he would not ha legal power to do, which is a special privilege rather than a right common to all and is often required as a condition precedent to the right to carry on business or to hold certain classes of property within the jurisdiction and, as such, they do not acquire any vested right so as to be entitled to a prior notice to show cause before curtailment of the area of their operation.
 
56. In view of the above including the effect of substitution no vested right has been accrued to the petitioners and the submission that the said right could not retrospectively be taken away has no substance. In the case of Mr. Raisuddin Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs in Writ Petition No.1744 of 1998, in an unreported decision on a similar fact, Mr. Justice AM Mahmudur Rahman (as his Lordships then was) has observed, inter alia, that in the fact of the present Case there accrued no vested right and no vested right has been taken away retrospectively by the impugned order and relied in the case of Kazi Amirul Islam which held that the Government is competent to curtail the jurisdiction of any union and declare any part of it as an urban area and further observed that Dr. Kamal Hossain urged that the amendment was intended to secure the interest of the public at large and by the impugned orders such interest has been secured although the right of the petitioners to exercise his function by the orders impugned has been narrowed down. Dr Hossain says that such reduction is not and cannot be an absolute deprivation of the right of the petitioner. In my opinion the legislature is to secure benefit for the people or in otherwise, the legislation is a beneficial one and the amendment was introduced to give effect to the policy of the Government to secure benefit to more persons as the amendment rule also is not to the total deprivation of the petitioner’s right to function as a Nikah registrar but it has narrowed down the limit of his also is not to the total deprivation of the petitioners right to function as a Nikah Registrar but it has narrowed down the limit of his area of activity.”
 
57. Mr. Razzak has referred to a decision in the case of Md. Aflabuddin Vs. Government of Bangladesh in an unreported decision in Writ No. 2136 of 1994 in which one of us was a party wherein the curtailment contrary to rule 10(2) was declared without lawful authority. The said decision dated 6-12-95 was prior to the decisions of the Appellate Division and the said decision on the fact did not consider the effect of rule 10(2) upon section 4 of the Act and the said decisions have been superseded by the decision of the Appellate Division and, as such, has no application in the instant Case. Rule 5A of Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Rules, 1975 though provided that notwithstanding anything contained in rule 5 any person acting as Nikah Registrar on temporary basis under rule 5(1) on the commencement of this Rule (19-1-93) and have completed 2 years as such, subject to the provision of rule 10 shall be granted licence as Nikah Registrar if after scrutiny of his qualification, certificates and records the advisory committee finds that he fulfils the requisite qualification specified in rule 6 and his performance during the period of holding temporary licence is satisfactory. The said rule 6 has been framed providing for qualification to be required from persons to whom a licence under section 4 may be granted. Rule 5 of the Rules 1975 provides for selection of candidate i.e. on the occurrence of a vacancy or on the creation of a new office of Nikah Registrar, the Registrar may with the approval of the Government issue licence to a qualified person to act as Nikah Registrar on purely temporary basis until a Nikah Registrar is licensed by Government on regular basis and invite application for the purpose. Upon receipt of the application the same shall be placed before the Advisory Committee for consideration and selection of candidates. The qualification of the candidates have been enumerated in rule 6 and shall process the same through the Advisory Committee. Thus under the 5A a Nikah Registrar is entitled to a licence upon completion of 2 years period as temporary Nikah Registrar for the permissible area having requisite qualification, duly recommended by the Advisory Committee. It may be mentioned that a Nikah Registrar appointed temporarily for the permissible area is also liable to be accorded with licence by the Government by publishing the same in the official gazette through being processed by the Advisory Committee. The licence so granted empowers the Nikah Registrar to act on behalf of the Government to register marriage or divorce in lieu of fees to the Government and the Nikah Registrar receiving the commission only. Thus a Nikah Registrar, in effect is an agent of the Government and the Nikah Registrars licence is also liable to be revoked, suspended, annulled following the procedure provided under rule 8 thereof. Be that as it may, the Government has authority to curtail, extend or otherwise alter the limit of any Nikah Registrar within the permissible-limit of area without any notice, even in the case of permanent Nikah Registrar.
 
58. In view of the above, neither the principle of natural justice nor question of vested right arises in the way of passing an order for curtailment of the area of jurisdiction of the petitioner within the permissible limit of area.
 
59. In view of the above, the impugned orders did not suffer for any illegality warranting our interference.
 
60. In the result, these Rules are discharged without any order as to costs.
 
The order of stay granted by this court earlier the above Rules, are hereby vacated.
 
Ed.