Mohammad Dabiruddin Vs. A.K. Rezaul Karim and others, V ADC (2008) 993

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 525 of 2005

Judge: Mohammad Fazlul Karim ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: A.S.M. Khalequzzaman,Mr. Mvi. Md. Wahidullah,,

Citation: V ADC (2008) 993

Case Year: 2008

Appellant: Mohammad Dabiruddin

Respondent: A.K. Rezaul Karim and others

Subject: Constitutional Law,

Delivery Date: 2007-7-23

Supreme Court of Bangladesh
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J
Md. Tafazzul Islam J
Md. Joynul Abedin J
 
Mohammad Dabiruddin
.................... Petitioner
Vs.
A.K. Rezaul Karim and others
….…….......Respondent
 
Judgment
July 23, 2007
 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 99 (A)
The Government is the custodian of maintaining the law and order situation in the Country and no body other than the Government is concerned under the situation or circumstances to maintain, protect, and preserve law and order situation. … (10)
 
Case Referred To-
Moudud Ahmed Vs Anwar Hossain Khan 15 BLD (AD) (1995) 12.
 
Lawyers Involved:
Mvi. Md. Wahidullah, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.
A.S.M. Khalequzzaman, Advocate-on-Record-For Respondent No.1.
Not represented- Respondent Nos. 2-11.                                        
 
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 525 of 2005
(From the judgment and order dated 20th April, 2005 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.7031 of 2004)
 
JUDGMENT
 
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J.
 
1. This application under Article 103 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.04.2005 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.7031 of 2004 rejecting the Application of the Petitioner praying for addition of party as a respondent.                        
 
2. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 filed the Writ Petition No.7031 of 2004 against order dated bearing Memo No. Sha: Md: Raj-3/01/2004/09/1(162) dated 08.01.2004 issued by Respondent No. 2, the Senior Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, purporting to forfeit publications of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat in Bangladesh and to prohibit their publication, sale distribution and preserva­tion thereof in violation of fundamen­tal rights of citizens as guaranteed under Articles 27, 31, 39 and 41 of the Constitution; that this applicant is Sunni Muslim and is constantly engaged in religious activities. He is presently the president of Khademul Islam Jamaat and General Secretary of the Jamia Islami Darul Ulum Khademul Islam Gowhardanga Madrasha, Gopalganj that the Respondent No.1 is a private individ­ual and a retired Deputy General Manager, Bangladesh Bank and Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are 6(six) NGOs that the petitioner's organization, Khademul Islam Jammat was established in 1950 and its founder is Mozahedul Azam Hazrat Moulana Shamsul Huq Faridpuri (RW); that the main objects of the petitioner's organization, inter alia, is to promote and preach Islam and to call people towards Islam, to guide the people to the true Islamic teaching and to get believed in Almighty Allah and Mohammad (SW) as His last Prophet and this organization establishes Mosque, Madrasha, Moqtab, Etimkhana and also publishes different religious books in the light of Quaran and Hadith. The petitioner's organization also help poor people by giving financial assistance; that the impugned order was passed under Section 99(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and any body feeling aggrieved by that order has to apply to High Court Division under Section 99(b) of the Code within two months from the date of order which requires to be heard by High Court Division consisting of three Judges under Section 99(C) of the Code but in the instant case impugned order was challenged not under Section 99(B) of the Code but 102 of the Constitution and as such the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable.
 
3. It was further stated that the impugned order is going to be published in the Official gazette which will further aggravate the situation.
 
4. The impugned order dated 08 January 2004 was published in the Official Gazette almost a month before moving the Writ Petition. The order was published in Gazette on 25 November, 2004 while the affidavit of the Writ Petition was sworn on 18 December, 2004. That 10 books printed and published by Ahmadia Zamat in Bangladesh were forfeited under, the impugned order yet none of those books were annexed in the Writ Petition to show that the contents of those books did not assault social, political and religious sentiments of the overwhelming majority Muslims of the country.                                     
 
5. That by the impugned order it appears that attested 10 books printed and published by Ahmadia Jamaat in Bangladesh were forfeited for containing elements against the basic facts and beliefs of Muslims and religion of Islam.                                                
 
6. That the Writ Petition was filed by six N.G.O.'s and one individual person who has no locus standi to file such application because they have not been aggrieved in any manner as they are neither printers nor publishers of the books forfeited by the impugned order.
 
7. That apart from the legal defects of the Writ petition, the contents of the books forfeited show that by those writings and publications not only the last Prophet hood and Hazrat Muhammad (SM.) was challenged and defamed but the very basic beliefs and foundations of the religion Islam was attacked in a very indecent and unacceptable manner for which the Kadianies namely the supporters of Ahmadia Jamaat have already been declared as non Muslim by Parliament of Pakistan, Iran and by the Government of Saudi Arabia; In of good number of decisions of the highest Courts of different Countries, the followers of Ahmadia Jamaat has been at  declared as non-Muslims.
 
8. Mvi. Md. Wahidullah, Advocate-on-Record, appearing for the petitioner submits that the Rule was issued by the High Court Division in a Writ Petition filed by persons who have not been aggrieved or affected by the impugned order because they are not printers or publishers of the books forfeited and it the petitioner has better footing than them to be added as Respondent for placing facts creating cause for passing the impugned Orders, the High Court Division should have allowed the petitioner to be added as a respondent for proper adjudication of the matter.
 
9. A.S.M Khalequzzaman, Advocate-on-Record, appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the writ petitioner raise objection to such addition of parties by filing separate affidavit-in-opposition sworn on 22.02.2005 and 11.04.2005 to each of the applications. He further submits that this writ petition is based on their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and has nothing to do with the religious sentiments of any person or group of persons and since writ petitioner has challenged an order passed by the Government (Annexure-A), it is obviously for the Government of justify its own order and as such the respondent-applicant though religious and Islamic minded people has no legal status or locus standi and under those circumstances is a merely busy body and not a necessary party in this writ petition in any manner. In support of his contention refers to a decision in the case of Moudud Ahmed Vs. Anwar Hossain Khan, 15 BLD (AD) (1995) 12.
 
10. The Government is the custodian of maintaining the law and order situation in the Country and no body other than the Government is concerned under the situation or circumstances to maintain protect and preserve law and order situ­ation.
 
In view of the above and for the reasons stated in the impugned order, we do not find substance in the sub­missions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner.
 
Accordingly, the leave petition is dismissed.
 
Ed.