Find a Lawyer

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 1 0th March 1970, in Petition No. 158 of 1968).

East Pakistan Muslim Family Laws Rules, 1961,

r. 7(S) Revocation or cancellation of licence of Nikah Registrars‑Function of Union Council‑Order of Provincial Government cancelling licence of Nikah Registrar, held, without lawful authority.

Dr. Alim‑al‑Razee, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by D. K. Khadim, Attorney for Petitioner.

Khondkar Mahbuddin Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abu Backkar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing :17th June 1970.

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑

The first respondent in this case was appointed a Nikah Registrar of ten Union Councils within Rangunia Police Station in the district of Chittagong on the 30th of May 1966, as the petitioner, who had been appointed earlier as a Nikah Registrar for the same Union Councils, was finding it difficult to cope with the work in the area. The petitioner appealed to the Government against this appointment under sub‑rule (5) of rule 7 of the East Pakistan Muslim Family Laws Rules, 1961, framed under the Muslim Family Laws Ordi nance, 1961. The appeal was heard by the Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of East Pakistan, who by his order of the 4th of April 1968, cancelled the appointment of the said respondent, Shamsul Alam.

The respondent challenged this order of cancellation by a petition under Article 98 of the late Constitution in the High Court of East Pakistan. The present petitioner was a party to those proceedings. He supported the order of cancellation on the ground that two Nikah Registrars could not be appointed for the same area. The High Court on the wording of subsection (2) of section 5 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, took the view that more than one persons could be appointed as Nikah Registrars for a Union Council but there could not be two Nikah Registrars for the same ward. All that was required to be done, therefore, was to distribute the wards amongst the two Registrars in such a manner that their jurisdictions did not conflict.

The High Court also came to the view that under sub‑rule (5 of rule 7 of the East Pakistan Muslim Family Laws Rules, 1961, it is the Union Council which could revoke or cancel the licence and not the Provincial Government. On this ground the order of cancellation passed by the Secretary, Judicial Department, was found to be bad and was declared to be without lawful authority.

The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and seeks to challenge the vires of subsection (2) of section 5 of the Ordinance of 1961, but in view of the fact that the order of cancellation was, in this case, made by an incompetent authority, the order was clearly not sustainable and was rightly set aside by the High Court. The petitioner has not been able to show as that the High Court was wrong in coming to this conclusion. This petition is, accordingly, without any substance and is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.