MD. JAHANGIR ALAM (SELIM) Vs. MD. HEBJUL BARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by leave at the instance of Md. Jahangir Alam (Selim) writ-respondent No. 4, a candidate for election for the post of Chairman of No. 9 Kaimpur Union Parishad under Kashba upazila, District Brahmanbaria calls in question the legality of the order dated 13th April, 2003 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 536 of 2003 making the Rule absolute declaring acceptance of the nomination paper of the appellant as not legal and without lawful authority being violative of the provision of Section 7 (2) (f) of the Local Government (Union Parishad) Ordinance, 1983.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the proper disposal of this appeal, are that the respondent No. 1 (writ-petitioner) filed the above writ-petition, stating to the effect that as a voter in Ward No. 9 of No. 9 Kaimpur Union Parishad he filed nomination paper as a candidate for Chairmanship of said Union at the election of to be held on 25-01-2003; that 6 (six) other candidates including appellant also filed nomination paper for the post of Chairman. The writ-petitioner-respondent No. 1 alleged that the nomination paper of the respondent No. 4 the appellant was declared valid in an illegal and malafide manner though it was brought to the notice of the Returning Officer that the appellant-respondent No. 4 having taken and advance of Tk. 20,000/- on 13-05-2003 for implementation of the development project of said Union and which was not done. So, he becomes disqualified under the provision of Section 7(2) (f) of the Local Government (Union Parishad) Ordinance, 1983.

(3.) The appellant as the writ-respondent No. 4 contested the Rule by filing affidavit-in-opposition, stating inter alia, that he as the Chairman of the Union Parishad was also the Chairman of the Project Implementation Committee constituted for the construction of 'vegetable shed' and in the background of the said fact, he had no pecuniary interest in the affairs of the Union Parishad and as such he has not acquired any disqualification under the provision under Section 7(2) (f) of the Ordinance arrived at an erroneous conclusion by the impugned judgment.