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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Pourashava Ordinance, 1977
Section 91 r/w
(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

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.

স্থানীয় সরকার (পৌরসভা) আইন, ২০০৯
Paurashava Ordinance, 1977
পৌরসভার কর্মচারী চাকুরী বিধিমালা, ১৯৯২
The Constitution of Bangladesh
Article 102
The High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution can pass certain orders and directions as enumerated in the Article but the High Court Division under Article 102 cannot pass any order or direction in a matter of administrative policy of the Government or any policy decision matter. Upgradation of a post described in the Rules, 1992 is a policy decision of the Government. Similarly, promotion is an administrative decision rests upon the higher administrative authority of the concerned department based on requisite qualification and satisfactory service record of the candidates.–– Appellate Division holds that justice would be best served if the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court Division is modified in the following manner: “Therefore, the respondents are directed to amend the Organogram of ‘A’, ’B’ and ‘C’ category Pourashava creating the post of ‘Chief Assessor’ in light of column 4 under the heading ‘Assessment Section’ of the Rules, 1992.” .....Ministry of Local Government, Bangladesh =VS= Md. Nurul Islam Khan, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 268] ....View Full Judgment