The Declaration and Alteration of limits of Union Rules, 1983— Rule 2(1)— Power of Deputy Commissioner to divide and reconstitute rural areas—
The Deputy Commissioner has the authority under section 3 of the Local Government (Union Parishads) Ordinance, 1983 to divide and reconstitute the rural areas into union. Under rule 2(1) of the Declaration and Alteration of Limits of Union Rules, 1983 the Government may also give direction to the Deputy Commissioner to act as such. The Government like any other person is not infallible and on occasion it can vary, cancel or rescind its order by showing reason therefor. Abdul Maleque Vs. Secretary Ministry of Local Government 1, MLR (1996) (AD) 289.

Election dispute— Recounting of ballot papers— Unless a very strong foundation is laid by evidence on record requiring recounting of ballot papers for effective adjudication of the dispute, recounting of ballot papers should not be resorted to as a matter of course. Abdul Latif Bepari Vs. Md. Nurul Islam Howlader & others. 5 MLR (2000) (AD) 298.

The Oath of Office (Union Parishads) Rules, 1983, Rule—2
If the Deputy Commissioner cannot administer the oath of office as contemplated in sections 6(2), 9 and 13(b) of the Local Government (Union Parishads) Ordinance, 1983 and Rule 2 of the Oath of Office (Union Parishads) Rules, 1983 no legal consequence has been provided for. The failure of the Chairman and Members to take oath can be inferred only when the Deputy Commissioner fixes a date of oath within 30 days of Gazette notification and the Chairman or Members without good cause shown, fail to take oath on the date fixed. Syed Hedayet Ali Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner and others, 16 BLD (AD) 121

Term of union parishad
In the instant case, the appellant No. 1 was elected chairman of the Putail Union Parishad and the result was published in the Gazette on 22.2.1992 and he took oath of office on 12.3.1992 The first meeting of the union parishad was held on 24.3.1992. Appellant No. 1 continued as chairman upto 3.8.1995 and thereafter respondent No. 1 took charge of the said office following his success in the election petition filed by him challenging the election of appellant No. 1—Held: The term of the concerned union parishad expired on 23.3.1997 and as such there was no illegality in declaring the election schedule for the said union parishad by the impugned notification dated 20.10.1997. Md. Abdus Sobhan & Anr. Vs Md. Abdu Salter & Ors. 7 BLT (AD)-3

Disqualification for election—
A fulltime teacher of a non-government Secondary School is not disqualified for being Chairman of Union Parishad. Mqfizul Huq Vs. Mostafizur Rahman and others. 1, MLR (1996) (AD) 223.

The appellant has been serving as the Headmaster of the Sammilani Girls High School. The said school is a recognised nongovernment school and the appellant was elected chairman of the union parishad in 1973, 1977, 1983 and 1992 and that he is still functioning as the chairman thereof - A recognised non-government secondary school does neither become a statutory body nor a ‘Local authority’ within the meaning of the General Clauses Act. That become disqualified for being a chairman of union parishad under section 7 (2) (e) of the ordinance of 1983 by reason of being a fulltime teacher of the; Sammilani Girls High School. Mofizul Haque Vs. Mafizur Rahman & Ors. 4BLT (AD)-130

Classification for legislation—Conditions for classification to stand the test of ‘equality—Classification of persons for the purpose of legislation is different from class legislation which is forbidden—To stand the test of ‘equality’ a classification, besides being based on intelligent differentia must have reasonable nexus with the object of the legislature intends to achieve by making the classification—While making a classification the legislature shall not act arbitrarily but make selection on rational basis—if two categories of persons or things, though they may have some resemblances, differ in material points, they may be separately treated for the purpose of legislation—Dead uniformity in making classification is not necessary and Rules of classification may allow flexibility—If a law is applicable to all persons of a well defined class, then it cannot be criticized on the ground that similar law has not been made for members o other classes—Exclusion of members of the Parliament from this beneficial law is certainly unethical and morally undefinable but it is lot unconstitutional. Sheikh Abdus Sabur Vs Returning Officer District Education Office-in-charge, Gopalgonj and others, 9BLD (AD) 25

Payment of loan—Disqualification for election as Chairman. of Union Parishad for non-payment of loan—Whether the word loan in the section includes part or installment of the total loan—Failure to pay any installment of the loan should he taken as default in view of the nature of duties of the public office— Considering the terms in the enactment the conclusion is that failure to pay any instalment makes the borrower a defaulter and such person is disqualified for holding office of the chairman. Nur Mohaminad Vs. Badruddoza Chowdhury and another, 10BLD (AD) 99

(a) The words ‘Prescribed Period’ mean a period of thirty days from the publication of results as far as the Deputy Commissioneris concerned. If he fails to determine a date within this time limit no consequence ensures. It is only when the elected person fails to make an oath of office of a date fixed within the time limit and furthermore when the Deputy Commissioner does not extend the period for lack of showing good cause that the Mischief of Section 13(b) is attracted — It is for the Deputy Commissioner to adhere to the time limit and the elected persons have no responsibility in this regard. If the Deputy Commissioner himself fails to adhere to the time limit, Section 13(b) of the Ordinance is not attracted. Md. Abdul Mannan Alias Manu Vs Md. Sajedul Haque & Ors. 2BLT (AD)-93

Removal and Suspension of Chairman and Members
On a reference to section 65(1) of the Ordinance the High Court Division found that no proceeding was initiated for the removal of the respondent Chairman under section 12 of the Ordinance nor any criminal case was started against him nor any enquiry was made by the Government wherein he was found to be guilty of any misconduct within the meaning of section 12(1) of the Ordinance. Law requires that before suspending or removing a Chairman or a member the Government must form an opinion on the basis of an enquiry that the delinquent acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Union Parishad or undesirable from the point of view of public interest. Passing of the impugned order of suspension without complying with the strict requirements of law cannot be sustained. Bangladesh Vs. Md. Lutfur Rahman and others, 17 BLD (AD) 303

The petitioner having had attended the meeting there was no prejudice caused to him for insufficient time given in the notice convening special meeting. The resolution for removal of the petitioner from the office of Chairman on the basis of vote of no confidence held in a special meeting and approval of such proceeding by the government was rightly passed and approved in compliance with the requirements of section 12 of the Ordinance. Belayet Hossain Bhuiyan vs Government of Bangladesh and others 6 BLC (AD) 60.

In the instant case, merely because of inclusion of Mauza Haldermura n ward No. 3 disturbing the territorial continuity it cannot be said that the impugned order of delimitation is violative of section 20 of the Ordinance in that it is absolutely within the provice of the Delimitation Officer to include a village in any ward taking into consideration all the 3 factors viz; territorial unity, administrative convenience and distribution of population as far as practicable. Moreso, it is the consistent view of the Appellate Division that section 20 of the Ordinance is not a mandatory one rather it is a directory in nature. Abdul Wahab Chowdhury vs Md Abu Taker and others 6 BLC (AD) 151.

It is the consistent view of this Division that Section 20 of the Ordinance is not a mandatory one rather it is a directory in nature. In the instant case merely because of inclusion Mouza Haldermura in ward No.3 disturbing the territorial continuity it cannot be said that the impugned order of delimitation is violative of Section 20 of the Ordinance in that it is absolutely within the province of the Delimitation Officer to include a village in any ward taking into consideration all the 3 factors viz., territorial unity, administrative convenience and distribution of population as far as practicable. Abdul Wahab Chowdhury Vs. Md. Abu Taher & Ors. 9 BLT (AD)-233

Election Commission has got inherent power under the provision of the Union Parishad Election Ordinance, 1983, of superintendence, control and directions which should be construed to mean the power to supplement the statutory rules with the sole purpose of ensuring free and fair elections. Md. Abul Bashar Vs Kamrul Hasan and others, 19 BLD(AD)125

read with
Union Parishads (Election) Pules, 1983
Rule—70
It is the responsibility of the Election Commission to see that the election is conducted justly, honestly and fairly and not to encourage demonstration of muscle power in the election. It is now well-settled that the post-election allegations are to be decided by the Election Tribunal and not by the Election Commission. If there are contemporaneous report or allegations about disturbance, rigging of ballot papers or election not being held justly, honestly and fairly then after being satisfied about the correctness of the report or allegations Election Commission would be justified to cancel the result of the election and direct repoll. But it would not be justified to cancel the result of election held peacefully on the basis of post-election allegations. Noor Hossain Vs Md. Nazrul Islam and others, 20 BLD (AD) 174.

read with The Union Parishad (Election) Rules, 1983 Rule-70
In the instance case there was contemporaneous allegations and report before the Election Commission about disturbance in those centres and the subsequent enquiry report established the allegations-we cannot but reiterate that if there are contemporaneous report or allegations about disturbance, ragging of ballot papers or election not being held justly, honestly and fairly then after being satisfied about the correctness of the report or allegations Election Commission would be justified to cancel the result of the election and direct repoll. But it would not be justified to cancel the result of election held peacefully on the basis of post-election allegations. Noor Hossain Vs. Md. Nazrul Islam & Ors. 9BLT (AD)46

When the election process is still on the High Court Division ought not have interfered with the matter on a disputed and controversial fact and resolved them on mere affidavits. Al-Haj Jamshed Ali Vs A K M Abdullah and others, 20 BLD (AD) 189

read with
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section—115(1)
It is well settled that the District Judge acting as an Election Appellate Tribunal under the Ordinance is not a persona designata and that his decision is revisable, under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Abdul Mutalib Vs Md. Mostakim Au and others, 19 BLD(AD)157

and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [V of 1908] Order-41 Rule-14(3)
Dispensation of the service of notice.
Admittedly respondent Nos. 2-5 have not entered appearance before the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal. They are non-contesting respondents and in such a situation Order 41 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure had given ample power to the High Court Division to dispense with the service of notice upon the non-contesting respondents which has been done by the High Court Division. The High Court Division though acted under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure they could have acted under Order 41(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This amendment it appears has escaped the notice of the learned Advocate who appeared on behalf of the respondent before the High Court Division and also of the said Division. In view of the clear provision of the Rule and in view of the fact that Section 29(1) of the Local Government (Union Parishad) Ordinance 1983 relates to issuance of notice in the election petition which has been done in the present case we hold that no illegality and wrong has been committed by the High Court Division. Md. Shahe Alam Vs. Golam Sarwar & Ors 8BLT (AD)-157

There are three alternative circumstances which provide occasions for the Government to exercise the power of suspension of a Chairman : (i) where any proceeding has been initiated for the removal of the Chairman under Section 12 or (2) where any criminal proceeding under any law has been started against such chairman or (3) where on an enquiry by the Government he is found guilty of any misconduct within the meaning of Section 12 (1) . But the exercise of this power is conditional upon a formation of opinion by the Government that the functioning of the person concerned as chairman is prejudicial to the interest of the Union Parishad or undesirable from the view of public interest.
Whenever in any statute the exercise of power by any authority is made conditional upon the formation of opinion of such authority, the formation of a rational opinion is a sine qua non for the exercise of such power. The Government must form the required opinion in terms of the language mentioned in Section 65(1) of the Ordinance after being satisfied that the materials before it have a causal connection with the kind of opinion that is required to be formed. Bangladesh Vs. Md. Lokman Patwari and another, 14 BLD (AD) 155.

Whether the order dated 13-10-92 passed by the Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Co-operatives suspending the Chairman from the office during his temporary absence was justified
(a) Under the Ordinance, the Government exercise an overall control and supervision over a Union Parishad. There alternative circumstances provide the occasion for the government to exercise the power of suspension of chairman :- (1) where any proceeding have been initiated for the removal of the chairman under Section 12; or (2) where any criminal proceedings under any law have been started against such chairman; or (3) where on an enquiry by the government, he is found to be guilty of any Misconduct within the meaning of Section 12(1). It is further conditional upon a formation of opinion by the government that the exercise of power by the person concerned as chairman is either likely to be prejudicial to the interest of the Union Parishad or of public interest. M. A. Matin Vs Md. Lokman Patwary 2BLT (AD)-112