SHAHE ALAM (MD) Vs. MD. GOLAM SARWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal is against judgment and order dated 18-8-1999 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 2561 of 1999. By this order the High Court Division dispensed with the service of notices upon opposite party Nos. 2 to 5.

(2.) The short fact leading to this petition is that on 11-12-1997 election for the constitution of No. 3 Atmol Union Parishad under Shibganj police station of Bogra was held and in that election respondents were contesting candidates and on 8-1-1998 the petitioner was declared elected as Chairman of the said Union Parishad who took, oath of office on 3-2-1998. Thereafter on 5-2-1998 respondent No 1 instituted Election Petition No. 3, of 1998 before the Tribunal praying for a declaration that the election held was void on certain grounds and that the petitioner was disqualified to contest the post of the Chairman as he was below 25 years and also on other ground Respondent No. 4 also filed a separate election petition which is Election Case No. 4 of 199 almost on similar grounds. The Election Tribunal, by order dated 11-4-1999 declared the election, of the petitioner void against which the petitioner moved the Appellate Tribunal who also upheld the decision of the Tribunal. The petitioner then moved the High Court Division in the present revisional application No. 2561 of 1999 and the. High Court Division issued Rule. Thereafter on 16-8-1999 an application was filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 praying for dispensation of this service of notices upon opposite party Nos. 2 to which was allowed by order dated 18-8-1999 by, the High Court Division. The petitioner then fuel this application for leave to appeal.

(3.) Mr. Md Fazlul Karim, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that dispensation of service of notices upon respondent Nos. 2 to 5 is contrary to the provision of section 29 of the Local Government (Union Parishad) Ordinance, 1983. It is submitted that it exercising the authority under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in dispensation of service of notice, the High Court Division 8 committed illegality. The learned Advocate contends that Order 41 rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not provided for any power upon the High Court Division to dispense with the service of notice upon respondent Nos. 2-5 and Election Rules also provided that such notices must be given to the contesting candidate of the election to which the petition relates.