ABDUL MANNAN Vs. BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These review petitions against, the impugned order dismissing civil petitions arising out of judgment and order of the High Court Division dated 7-7-1999 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 1787 and 2259 of 1998 heard and disposed of together as common question of law and fact were involved therein. The writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1787 of 1998 was a Ward Commissioner of newly created Ward No. 4 of Lalmohan Pourashava who has challenged the final notification dated 9-6-1998 of the Delimitation Officer relating to delimitation of 3 wards into 9 wards of the Pourashava alleged to have been done without taking into consideration territorial unity, distribution of population, administration convenience, without any enquiry and obtaining any opinion of the local people in violation of section 21 of the Pourashava Ordinance, 1977. The Deputy Secretary (poura) also did not consider the report along with Mouza map showing distribution of the population of the said Pourashava and that the variation of population was more than 10% in most of the Wards. The writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2259 of 1998 challenged the notification dated 2-7-1998 relating to delimitation of 3 wards into 9 wards of Chowmuhani Pourashava stating that while delimitating the wards the Delimitation Officer did not take into consideration variation of population which was more than 10% from one ward to another and that without informing the Chairman delimitation was made in violation of section 21 of the Ordinance and that the report of Delimitation Officer which was sent to the Ministry of Local Government and Co-operatives was arbitrary and that it was prepared at the instance of some interested quarters.

(2.) The High Court Division on perusal of materials on record found that the population census of 1991 showed 3% increase of population per year and the question of variation of population taken in the other petition is a disputed question of fact which cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction and that section 21 (1) of the Ordinance is not mandatory but directory and that the variation of 10% of population are to be taken into consideration as far as practicable depending on facts of each case and that there was no violation of the said provision in respect of the Pourashava concerned.

(3.) Mr. Md. Aftab Hossain, the learned Advocate-on-Record appearing for the petitioners, submits that the issue involved whether variation of more than 10% population will defeat the purpose of the law in course of delimitation of wards as Pourashava contemplated in section 21 of the Pourashava Ordinance and, as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be reviewed to secure ends of justice.