Appointed a Nikah Registrar–
Appointed him as such and has power to issue the memo dated 9.9.1997 contained in Annexure-A to this writ petition and as such acted within its jurisdiction. No notice is required to be issued. High Court Division did not commit any error of law while making the rule absolute. Under section 4 of the Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Act, 1974 the Government has unfettered right to extend, curtail or otherwise alter the limit of any such area. .....Moulana Mohd. Ruhul Amin =VS= Md. Motiur Rahman Chowdhury, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 273] ....View Full Judgment

The Government has the power under the second proviso to section 4 of Act, 1974 to extend, curtail, alter or otherwise alter the limits of any area. The petitioners licence as a Nikah Registrar has not at all been revoked/affected but under the second proviso of section 4 of the Act his area has been curtailed which the Government is authorised under the law to do. Mr. Raisuddin Vs Bangladesh and others, 19 BLD (AD) 179. ....View Full Judgment

read with
Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Rules, 1975
Rule—10(2)
The Second Proviso to section 4 of the Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Act, 1974 empowers the Government to extend, curtail or otherwise alter the limits of any area for which a Nikah Registrar has been granted licence by the Government. Moulvi Md. Khurshid Alam Vs Bangladesh, Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and others, 18 BLD (AD)152 ....View Full Judgment

As it appears that the High Court Division discharged the Rule holding that as held in the case of Kazi Emanuddin Bhuiyan vs Government of Bangladesh, 12 BLC (AD) 134, and in the case of Raisuddin vs Bangladesh 51 DLR (AD) 152, the vires of section 4 of the Act of 1974 and the Rules 3, 4 and 10 of the Rules of 1975 were challenged and the Appellate Division, considering various decisions pronounced by both the Divisions of the Supreme Court, answered the question in the negative and refused leave holding that the provisions of the second proviso to section 4 of the Act of 1974 as also Rules 3, 4 and 10 of Rules of 1975 are not in any way violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Bazlur Rahman vs Bangladesh 14 BLC (AD) 189. ....View Full Judgment

In the case of Kazi Md Amirul Islam vs Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs reported in 1996 BID (AD) 110, this Division had the occasion to deal with the second proviso to section 4 of the Act of 1974 and Rule 10 of the Rules of 1975 as amended on 19-1-1993, wherein the Appellate Division has held that the Government had the power under the second proviso to section 4 of the Act of 1974 to extend, curtail or otherwise alter the limits of any area. The petitioner's licence as a Nikah Registrar has not at all been revoked/affected but under the second proviso of section 4 of the said Act, this area has been curtailed which the Government is authorised under the law to do. Bazlur Rahman vs Bangladesh 14 BLC (AD) 189. ....View Full Judgment