Dissolution of Executive Committee— Locus stand! of founder Member in a suit—
Bangladesh Association for Voluntary Sterilization (BAVS) has its constitution and Bye laws under which its National Executive Committee is empowered to protect the interests of the organisation in suits. A founder member of the Association when not authorised by the National Executive Committee to do so has no locus standi to bring suit against the dissolution of the Executive Committee. Deluar Hossain (Md). Vs. Joint Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and others. 4, MLR (1999) (AD) 350.

Whether the petitioner claiming himself to be a founder Member has locus standi to agitate the matter of dissolving the Executive Committee of the impugned Association.
If the Executive Committee of the organisation was wrongfully dissolved, it was for the Executive Committee to prosecute the matter in a court of law but if the Executive Committee does not do so an ordinary founding member must be so authorised under the constitution and bye-laws of the said organisation to take up the crusade on behalf of the Executive Committee. [Para-2] Md. Delwar Hossain Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. 7 BLT (AD)-105.

Voluntary Social Welfare Agency (Registration and Control) Ordinance, 1961
Section 9(l)(2) read with
Foreign Donation (Voluntary Activities) Regulation Ordinance, 1978
Since GSS has been registered under Voluntary Social Welfare Agencies (Registration and Control) Ordinance. 1961 and also under the Foreign Donations (Voluntary Activities) Regulation Ordinance, 1978 it was amenable to the control and supervision of respondent No. 1 Director General of the Department of Social Services of the Government. Justice (Retired) K. M. Sohhan & Anr. Vs. Department of Social Service & Ors. 9BLT (AD)-143

Conditions necessary for dissolving the existing governing body of a samity under its control and forming an ad-hoc committee.
All the three Courts below, on proper consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence on record and the law bearing on the subject, concurrently held that none of the circumstances and conditions stated in section 9 of the Voluntary Social Welfare Agencies (Registration and Control) Ordinance 1961 was present in the case and as such the registration authority had no power to dissolve the existing governing body of the samity and to form an ad-hoc committee. The activities of the ad-hoc committee as well as the activities of the newly elected governing body at the instance of the registration authority were all illegal exercises and consequently all activities of the ad-hoc committee and the newly elected committee were illegal. The Appellate Division found to ground to interfere with the decisions of the Courts below.
Aysha Siddiqua -Vs.- Ms. Fazilatunnesa and others 2 ALR (2013)(AD) 64

Registration certificate issue–
The respondent had been in the management of the NGO "আপন গ্রাম প্রগতি" for a good number of years. When the respondent returned, after retiring from the government service and was elected as the President of the said NGO, the appellants who had themselves been part of the organization, came out from it and obtained registration of the name "Own Village Advancement (OVA)" for his newly created organization, having same/similar type of work plan. This is clearly malafide.
It appears upon going through the constitution of the respondent No.1’s organization "আপন গ্রাম প্রগতি", (Annexure-A(I)) which has been approved/acknowledged by the authority of the government and on the basis of which registration (Annexure-) has been issued, the name of the organization has been given as "আপন গ্রাম প্রগতি". The aims and object of which encircles development of the people of 13 villages of Lalmonirhat by providing education, healthcare, work and other social and economical activities in developing their livelihood as self sufficient persons. Whereas from Annexures filed by the writ respondent No.8 (present appellant No. 1) the fact of registration and acknowledgement of the organization "আপন গ্রাম প্রগতি" as "Own Village Advancement (OVA)" by the authority of the government as well as by him also appears to be true (Annexures 2 to 8 all issued on different dates between 1985 to 1997) prior to present appellants obtaining new registration as `Own Village Advancement (OVA)" in 2000 AD. The appellants, it appears, have taken over the management of the "আপন গ্রাম প্রগতি" "(OVA)" and for their own interests have got the English version of the name used by the respondent No. 1 registered as their organization. Such action is illegal and malafide as the same is nothing but to deceive the people as well as the foreign donors.
The findings and decision arrived at by the High Court Division being based on proper appreciation of fact and law, the same do not call for any interference by this Division. This civil appeal is dismissed. …Moyezul Islam Moyez(Md.) =VS= Upendranath Das, (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 96] ....View Full Judgment