The High Court Division observed that a departmental proceedings was initiated against the respondent which has been taken without approval of the G.A. committee, and the same was a mandatory provision of law and that the Chief Justice without taking the matter to the G.A. Committee had accorded the approval. On perusal of the record the High Court Division noticed that there was an endorsement at the bottom of the note-sheet with a note of the Chief Justice ‘yes’ and this proved that the Chief Justice accorded the approval violating rule 3(d) of the High Court Division Rules. This court perused the record and found that this observation was correct but that itself is not a ground for interference. It should be borne in mind that in urgent matters, sometimes the Chief Justice gives approval in respect of some proposals without placing the matter before the G.A. committee, because the calling such meeting takes time and in urgent matters the Chief Justice accords permission subject to the approval of the committee later on. In this case inadvertently the matter has not been placed before the G.A. Committee. In order to avoid more harm to the judiciary, the Chief Justice takes such decision. The Chief Justice being the head of the judiciary is respected by the Judges and his opinion with regard to the superintendence and control over the lower judiciary has primacy and is being honoured by the Judges of the committee. This is a practice being followed by this Court and non-approval of the decision of the Chief Justice was merely an irregularity and not an illegality and this will not vitiate the decision. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Sontosh Kumar Shaha, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 143] ....View Full Judgment

The High Court Division observed that a departmental proceedings was initiated against the respondent which has been taken without approval of the G.A. committee, and the same was a mandatory provision of law and that the Chief Justice without taking the matter to the G.A. Committee had accorded the approval. On perusal of the record the High Court Division noticed that there was an endorsement at the bottom of the note-sheet with a note of the Chief Justice ‘yes’ and this proved that the Chief Justice accorded the approval violating rule 3(d) of the High Court Division Rules. This court perused the record and found that this observation was correct but that itself is not a ground for interference. It should be borne in mind that in urgent matters, sometimes the Chief Justice gives approval in respect of some proposals without placing the matter before the G.A. committee, because the calling such meeting takes time and in urgent matters the Chief Justice accords permission subject to the approval of the committee later on. In this case inadvertently the matter has not been placed before the G.A. Committee. In order to avoid more harm to the judiciary, the Chief Justice takes such decision. The Chief Justice being the head of the judiciary is respected by the Judges and his opinion with regard to the superintendence and control over the lower judiciary has primacy and is being honoured by the Judges of the committee. This is a practice being followed by this Court and non-approval of the decision of the Chief Justice was merely an irregularity and not an illegality and this will not vitiate the decision. …Bangladesh & ors Vs Sontosh Kumar Shaha & ors, (Civil), 6 SCOB [2016] AD 1 ....View Full Judgment

High Court Division Rules, 1973
Rule 4 (Chapter-X)
Civil Rules and Orders
Rule 774 (16)
Code of Civil Procedure(V of 1908)
Order XLVII, Rule-1
The Appellate Division observed that the judgement and order passed by the High Court Division is most cryptic and palpably inadequate and cannot be said to be a judgement at all. No reason whatsoever has been given for allowing the application nor has the matter of delay been considered at all by way High Court Division. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, High Court Rules and Civil Rules and Orders have been completely overlooked. In the circumstances the Appellate Division is constrained to send the matter on remand to the High Court Division for a proper judgement in accordance with law.
Johora Bibi and others-Vs.-Tozammal Hossain and others 6 ALR (AD) 2015 (2)213

Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division) Rules, 1973 The Supreme Court (High Court Division) Rules 1973 under Chapter-XIA Rule 14(1) it is specifically provided that if the respondent(s) intends to controvert any statement(s) made in the petition and/or any documents) annexed thereto, he can do so by filing an affidavit-in-opposition; meaning thereby, in the absence of any affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondents the statements made in the writ-petition shall remain uncontroverted. .....Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh =VS= Borak Real Estate (Pvt) Ltd. , (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 35] ....View Full Judgment

High Court Division Jurisdiction–
We note also that item No.1 of the list for Mr. Justice Md. Rezaul Hasan for that day is Summary Suit No.02/2012 for appearance of parties. The petitioner involved in that suit is none other than Ansarul Haque and the suit is against Manager, Agrani Bank. Be that as it may, the High Court Division did not have jurisdiction allocated to it to hear such summary suits.
We find merit in the appeal, which is allowed, without, however, any order as to costs. The impugned order of the High Court Division is hereby set aside. The application for return of plaint is allowed. The plaintiff, if so advised, may file the suit before any court competent to hear the matter in accordance with law. ...Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd. =VS= Bengal Techno Leather Ltd., (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 41] ....View Full Judgment