Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh
Pourashava Ordinance [XXVI of 1977] |
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation |
Head Note |
Section 3
|
Authority of Government to declare any area as urban area—
The Government has the authority under section 3 to declare any area as
urban area on compliance with the requirements of law and any area since
declared as such and working for long cannot be interfered with.
Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Patuakhali Vs. Parimal Chandra
Kundo and others. 2, MLR (1997) (AD) 354. ....View Full Judgment
|
Section 3
|
Power of Government to declare any area as urban area—
Under section 3 of the Pourashava Ordinance, 1977 the Government is
empowered to declare any area as urban area on compliance with the
requirement of law. Where any such area which was declared as urban area
long ago and which has long been functioning as such cannot be interfered
with. The writ petition in which the aforesaid declaration has been
challenged but the Pourashava concerned has not been made party to the
proceeding must fail for non-joinder of necessary party.
Kazi Ashraf Alt Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others 2 MLR (AD) (1997)
355. ....View Full Judgment
|
Section 8
|
Oath of office to the elected Chairman—
There is nothing wrong in the order given by the High Court Division in a
writ petition to the Deputy Commissioner to administer oath of office to
the elected Chairman in pursuance of the provision of section 8 of the
Ordinance inspite of the election being under challenge.
Machchu Mia and others Vs. Abdul Mannan Barker & others. 5 MLR (2000) (AD)
42. ....View Full Judgment
|
Section 13 (1) (d)
|
Removal of the Petitioner from the office of Chairman of Pourashava -
moving a resolution of no confidence.
Resolution of no confidence against the petitioner was taken upon due
compliance of law and since the resolution has been approved by the
competent authority, the order of removal in respect of the petitioner
removing him from the office of Chairman does not suffer from infirmity.
Mosharraf Hossain & Ors Vs LGRD & Ors 13BLT(AD)45 ....View Full Judgment
|
Section 21
|
It is the consistent of this Division that Section 21 of the Pourashava
Ordinance, 1977 is directory and not mandatory. It is within the province
of the delimitation Officer to take into consideration distribution of
population as far as practicable vis-a-vis the territorial unity and
administrative convenience and variation of population alone cannot he a
ground to render invalid a report of the delimitation finally published.
Miah Lutful Hossain Khashru & Ors. Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. 8 BLT(AD)-284 ....View Full Judgment
|
Section 21
|
Empowers the Thana Nirbani Officer to make delimitation of Wards in
Pourashava—
The Thana Nirbahi Officer is empowered under section 21 of the Pourashava
Ordinance 1977 to make delimitation of Wards of Pourashava upon taking into
consideration the territorial unity, administrative convenience and
distribution of population with not more than 10% variation. All these
matters being disputed factual aspects cannot be decided in writ
jurisdiction. Chairman being not an aggrieved person has no locus standi to
invoke writ jurisdiction against the delimitation.
Khalilur Rahman (Md) Vs. Government of Bangladesh & others. 5 MLR (2000)
(AD) 80. ....View Full Judgment
|
Section 91
|
read with
(Emergency) Requisition of Property Act [XII of 1963]
Section 14A —Service of notice under section 91 of the Ordinance was a
must before institution of the suit.
The Appellate Division hold that service of notice under section 91 of the
Ordinance upon the District Council, Feni (at the time of filing the suit,
it was Noakhali) was a must before institution of the suit and as
admittedly no notice as required by the said section of the Ordinance was
delivered or left at the office of the District Council, Noakhali (now
Feni) before the institution of the suit. The suit was not maintainable in
law and the same was liable to be dismissed on the ground of its
maintainability alone without deciding the other issues involved in the
suit.
The Chairman, District Council, Feni, Deputy Commissioner, Feni -Vs.- Feni
Alia Madrasha Mosque Committee. (Civil) 11 ALR (AD) 43-47 ....View Full Judgment
|
Section 133(2) and 135
|
Supersesion of Pourashava without opportunity of being heard is illegal—
Pourashava is a corporate body elected by direct adult franchise which
cannot be superseded by Government without giving an opportunity of being
heard to the elected Chairman and Commissioners. The impugned order of
supersesion being violative of the principle of natural justice is illegal
and not sustainable in law.
Ministry of Rural Development and Cooperatives Gout of Bangladesh Vs. Md.
Afzal 40 DLR (AD) 154. ....View Full Judgment
|