JAMSHED ALI Vs. AKM ABDULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by leave is against judgment and order dated 9th June, 1998 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 44 of 1998 making the Rule absolute and directed respondent Nos. 1-4 to declare the result of the election of the Chairman of No. 7 Magalgaon Union Parishad, Sylhet.

(2.) The short fact leading to this appeal is that, respondent AKM Abdullah contested the election of the Chairman of the aforesaid Union Parishad held on 29-12-1997 and the polling of all centres were held peacefully and there was no trouble at the time of counting of the ballot papers of the Chairman. But at the time of counting of ballot papers of the Members and Women candidates some unruly persons armed with deadly weapons entered into the polling station at Lamagaon Talukpara Government Primary School centre and forcibly snatched away ballot papers and all other connected materials of Ward No. 4 of the said union.

(3.) Leave was granted at the instance of the present appellant to consider the following: Mr. AKM Faiz, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that before completion of counting of votes one chairman candidate namely, Haji Ajman Ali with the help of some hired goondas had snatched away the ballot boxes and all other election materials from the centre in question and thereby the presiding officer could not prepare the result sheet and the Returning Officer in his report dated 30-12-97 (Annexure E) informed the District Election Officer that the presiding officer did not forward to him any result of the poll of the aforesaid polling station and, as such, the learned Judges of High Court Division erred in placing undue importance to the result produced by respondent No. 1 with his affidavit-in-opposition claiming that the same had been supplied to his polling agent by the presiding officer after counting of ballots of chairman candidates. The learned Advocate next submits that the presiding officer due to admitted disturbance at the polling station could not announce the result of counting of ballots and there having been clear violation of Rule 39 of the Election Rules, the returning officer rightly and in accordance with law recommended for holding re-election at the disputed centre, which report the District Election Officer in the discharge of his official duties under the law forwarded to the Election Commission (Annexure F), which under section 24 of the Ordinance has been vested. with the authority to conduct the election in accordance with rules and as such the learned Judges of the High Court Division have committed an error of law in declaring that the impugned Annexure E and F of the Writ Petition were issued without any lawful authority.