Nurul Islam (Md) Vs. Election Commis­sion, 42 DLR (AD) (1990) 71

Case No: Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1987

Judge: MH Rahman ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Sharifuddin Chaklader,Mr. Zakir Ahmed,,

Citation: 42 DLR (AD) (1990) 71

Case Year: 1990

Appellant: Nurul Islam (Md)

Respondent: Election Commis­sion

Subject: Election Matter,

Delivery Date: 1989-4-23

 
Supreme Court of Bangladesh
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Badrul Haider Chowdhury J
Shahabuddin Ah­med J
M.H. Rah­man J
A.T.M. Afzal J
 
Nurul Islam (Md)
..........................Appellant
Vs
The Election Commis­sion and others
..........................Respondent
 
Judgment
April 23, 1989.
 
The Local Government (Union Parishads) Ordinance, 1983
The Union Parishads (Election) Rules, 1983
Rule 29
Direction for holding re-election passed by the election commissioner on the basis of the report of the returning officer and such report being gathered from the report of the presiding officer, the High Court Division acted illegally in interfering with the election commission’s order for re-election…………………….(3 & 4)
 
Lawyers Involved:
Zakir Ahmed, Advocate, instructed by Md. Aftab Hossain, Advocate-on-Record.—For the Appel­lant.
Sharifuddin Chaklader, Advocate-on-Record—For the Respondent No. 10.
Not represented. —Respondent Nos. 1—9.
 
Civil Appeal No 25 of 1987
(From the judgment and order dated 11th De­cember, 1986 passed by the High Court Division, Dhaka in Civil Order No. 988 of 1986).
 
JUDGMENT
 
M.H. Rahman J.
 
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th August, 1988 of the High Court Division passed in Writ Petition No. 1120 of 1988. Respon­dent No. 10, Md. Helaluddin challenged the notice dated 9th April, 1988 (Annexure—C to the writ peti­tion) directing a re-poll at Rajanagar Primary School Centre, Simulkandi Union Parishad, Upazila Bhairab.
 
2. After considering the report of the Presiding Officer and that of the Returning Officer which gave an appearance that the election was held peacefully the High Court Division set aside the order of Elec­tion Commission for re-poll. Respondent No.1 was also directed to publish the result of the election that was submitted by the Returning Officer.
 
3. The appellant contends that the High Court Division was misled by the alleged reports of the Presiding Officer and the Returning Officer. He reit­erates what he had asserted before the High Court Di­vision. His case is that the election could not be held in Rajanagar Primary School centre; that as there was serious obstructions and interruptions at the time of the election the Presiding Officer adjourned the poll under Rule 29 of the Election Rules and sent a report to the Returning Officer; that in due course that report of the Presiding Officer was sent to the Election Commission, and, thereafter, the di­rection for re-election was passed by the Election Commission. It is further contended by the appellant that as there were contradictory reports with regard to the disputed poll the High Court Division ought not to have interfered in the matter.
 
4. We find substance in the contention of the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of this Court's decision dated 19th Feb­ruary, 1989 in Civil Appeal Nos. 40, 38 and 29 of 1988 with Civil Appeal Nos. 2,3,4,5,8 and 17 of 1989 we hold that the High Court Division acted il­legally in interfering with the Election Commis­sion's order for re-election.
 
5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court Division, passed in Writ Petition No. 1120 of 1988, is set aside and the writ is re-called. No costs.
 
Ed.