Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 337 of 2006
Judge: M. M. Ruhul Amin ,
Court: Appellate Division ,,
Advocate: Fida M. Kamal,Mr. Munsurul Hoque Chowdhury,,
Citation: 11 MLR (AD) (2006) 190
Case Year: 2006
Appellant: Md. Saifur Rahman Emam
Respondent: Government of Bangladesh
Subject: Election Matter,
Delivery Date: 2006-3-30
Syed J.R. Mudassir Husain CJ
M.M. Ruhul Amin J
Arnirul Kabir Chowdhury J
Md. Saifur Rahman Emam
The Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka & others
30 March 2006
Union Parishad Ordinance, 1983
Disqualification of a candidate on ground of bank loan defaulter—
Mr. Munsurul Hoque Chowdhury, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mrs. Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-Record- For the Petitioner
Mr. Fida M. Kamal, Additional Attorney General, instructed by Mr. A.S.M. Khalequzzaman, Advocate-on-Record- For the Respondent
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 337 of 2006.
(From the judgment and order dated 20.03.2006 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 2476 of 2006.)
M. M. Ruhul Amin J.
1. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.03.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 2476 of 2006 rejecting the writ petition summarily.
2. The writ petition was filed for a direction upon the respondent No. 5 of the writ petition to treat the nomination paper of the petitioner as valid allowing him to contest the bye election for the post of Chairman of Kalikapur Union Parishad, District-Patuakhali scheduled to be held on 05.04.2006. The nomination paper of the writ petitioner was declared invalid by the Returning Officer on the ground that he is a bank loan defaulter, as per papers submitted before the Returning Officer by the Manager, Rupali Bank Limited, Debuapur Branch, Patuakhali showing that an amount of Tk. 1,82.10,366/- was due to the bank by the writ petit inner.
3. We have heard Mr. Musurul Hoque Chowdhury, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Fida M. Kamal, the learned Additional Attorney General for the respondents and perused the judgment of the High Court Division and other connected papers.
4. It is not disputed that Rupali Bank obtained a money decree for the amount claimed by them from the Court of Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Adalat, Patuakhali against the writ petitioner. The petitioner without preferring any appeal against the money decree passed against him filed a writ petition challenging the decree.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the writ petition is pending the petitioner should not be treated as a loan defaulter.
6. The learned Additional Attorney General on the other hand submits that since no appeal has been preferred against the decree of the Artha Kin Adalat the money decree still stands and is binding upon the petitioner. He further submits that the election process once started should not be disturbed and the election scheduled to be held on 05.04.2006 should not be stayed on the prayer of the writ petitioner who is disqualified to be a candidate being a bank loan defaulter.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court Division.
8. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.