High Court Division · Special Original Jurisdiction
Md. Fazlul Karim and another v Government of Bangladesh and others
Writ Petition 6429/2009 · Decided 10 July 2025
The petitioners challenged under article 102 of the Constitution a memo dated 21.07.2009 issued by respondent No. 3 concerning a high school in Fulpur Upazila, Mymensingh. They stated that the school, first established on a 6-decimal plot, had been moved to a 1.53-acre site by order of the Government and a decision of the Managing Committee. Respondent No. 8 relied on 2002 reports of the School Inspector finding that the earlier shifting order was not made in due process and that, owing to local objection, the shifting had not been completed; on a 2007 inquiry report finding that the shifting decision was taken under political influence against the wishes of local people and students; and on a 2009 report of the Upazila Secondary Education Officer. The State also opposed the Rule. The High Court Division held that the government authority had discretionary power to decide the final location of the school building and, after inquiry, had taken that decision. Finding no cogent reason to interfere, it discharged the Rule.
- Q1
Whether the memo dated 21.07.2009 issued by respondent No. 3 concerning the location of a high school in Fulpur, Mymensingh should be declared to have been made without lawful authority.
- The government authority has discretionary power to decide finally where a school building is to be located.
- Where the authority took its final decision on the location of the school after inquiry, the Court found no cogent reason to interfere with the impugned memo.
- The Rule was discharged and the earlier order of stay recalled and vacated.
The government authority has empowered discretionary power to take decision for settling the place finally for establishing the school building in question.
In the court’s own words.
Writ Petition 6429/2009, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 5 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.
1
In the Supreme Court of Bangladesh
High Court Division
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Present
Justice Md. Habibul Gani
And
Justice Sk. Tahsin Ali
Writ Petition No. 6429 of 2009
In the matter of:
An application under Article 102 read
with Article 44 of the Constitution of the
People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
-And-
In the matter of:
Md.Fazlul Karim and another
……. Petitioners
Vs.
Govt. of Bangladesh represented by the
Secretary, Ministry of Educationand
others
……Respondents
Mr. Md. Mohaddesh-Ul-Islam, DAG with
Mr. Mahfuz Bin Yousuf, DAG
Mr. Md. Alamgir Hossian, AAG
Mr. Kamrul Islam, AAG
Mr. Kamrunnahar Tamanna, AAG and
Mr. Ahmad Musanna Chowdhury, AAG
….. For the respondents
Mr. Salman A Nabi, Advocate
….. For the respondent No. 8
Heard on: 08.05.2025, 15.05.2025,
09.07.2025and
judgment on: 10.07.2025
Sk. Tahsin Ali, J:
1On an application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh filed by the petitioner, a Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned letter vide Memo No. ১০/ময়মনdated 21.07.2009 issued by
the respondent No. 3 under the heading “িবদ ালয় হ া র সংেগ” (Annexure-E) should not be declared to have been made without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this court may seem fit and proper.
2The petitioner’s case as stated in the writ petition inter alia is that a High School under the name of Charniayamat Model High School is situated under 2 No. Rambhadrapur Union, Post office- Goadanga, Police Station-Fulpur, District-Mymensingh which was at first established at Plot No. 721 measuring .06 decimals of land.
3Thereafter for lack of space for smoothly running it’s functions the school was transferred at Plot No. 234, 235,236 and 237 on 1.53 acres of land by the order of the Government and as per the decision of the Managing Committee of the school vide the letter Memo No. 3917 dated 23.03.2002 and 30.03.2002 where in three number tinshed rooms were made including varandah which is 90(ninety) hands long and about 200 students are regularly studying there.
4Mr. Salman A Nabi learned Advocate for the respondent No. 8 filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 08.02.2012 to contest the Rule and he has drawn our kind attention regarding two independent investigation report dated 24.08.2002, 25.08.2002 conducted by the School Inspector regarding the controversy of shifting of Char Niamotpur Ideal High School and the Inspector after physical inspection of the school both new location school building as well as old one came to a decision that the order of shifting the said school earlier has been given by the board
authority was not in a due process of law and due to huge objection of the local people and general students of the said school the shifting process yet not completed and the school remain in its earlier place.
5Mr. Mahfuz Bin Yusif the learned Deputy Attorney General appearing on behalf of the State opposes the Rule.
6We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and perused the application and materials before us. The learned advocate of the respondent No. 8 contended that the Additional District Commissioner (Education and Development) Mymensingh was asked to investigate regarding the irregularities and corruption of the Char Niamotpur Ideal High School by the Senior Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Education Vide Memo No. 13/Awfcwi/3-10/2005 (Ask-2)/181 dated 14.03.2007. After receiving of the said memo for investigation dated 14.03.2007 Additional District Commissioner (Education and Development) after physical inspection of the said school sent a inquiry report to the Secretary of Ministry of Education on 27.06.2007. In the inquiry report it was revealed that somehow under political influenced the decision was taken for shifting the school in a new location though the local people and general students of the school were not agreeing with the said decision for shifting the school in a new location.
7It is revealed from affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent No. 8, Ef−Sm¡ j¡dÉ¢jL ¢nr¡ A¢gp¡l Fulpur, Mymenshingh has been asking for conduct a enquiry regarding the school in question and according after conclusion the enquiry filed the report to the Upazila Nirbahi
Officer, Fulpur, Mymensingh on 02.09.2009. The copy of the said report also forwarded to the school inspector j¡dÉ¢jL J EµQ j¡dÉ¢jL ¢nr¡ ®h¡XÑ, Y¡L¡ the enquiry report read as follows:
NZfÐS¡a¿»£ h¡wm¡−cn plL¡l
Ef−Sm¡ j¡dÉ¢jL ¢nr¡ A¢gp¡−ll L¡kÑ¡mu
g¥mf¤l, juje¢pwqz
8pÈ¡lL ew- Ej¡¢nA/g¥m/juje/2009/111
9¢hou- Qm¢eu¡ja BcnÑ EµQ ¢hcÉ¡mu¢V f§−hÑl ÙÛ¡−e ÙÛ¡e¡¿¹¢la Ll¡ pwœ²¡¿¹ fТa−hcez
10p¤œ ew- E¢eA/g¥m/juje/584(1)/,a¡¢lM-02.09.2009¢MË:
11EfkѤš² ¢hou J p§−œl f¢l−fТr−a S¡e¡−e¡ k¡−µR ®k, g¥mf¤l Ef−Sm¡d£e Ql¢eu¡ja BcnÑ EµQ ¢hcÉ¡mu¢V 1990 p−e Ql¢eu¡ja ®j±S¡u hs f¡L¡ S¡−j jp¢Sc pwmNÀ ÙÛ¡−e fТa¢ùa quz Hlfl ¢hcÉ¡mu pwmNÀ i¥¢jl f¢lj¡e fÐ−u¡S−el a¥me¡u Lj HC AS¤q¡a −c¢M−u ¢hcÉ¡m−ul fÐd¡e ¢nrL Se¡h ®j¡: ®j¡S¡−Çjm qL 2000Cw p¡−m ¢hcÉ¡mu¢V a¡l h¡pÙÛ¡e ¢eLVhaÑ£ ÙÛ¡−e ÙÛ¡e¡¿¹¢la L−lez ¢hcÉ¡mu¢V ÙÛ¡e¡¿¹−ll fl ®b−LC H ¢hou ¢e−u ¢hcÉ¡mu LÉ¡Q−j¾V Hm¡L¡u E−šSe¡ ¢hl¡S Ll¢Rm g−m ¢hcÉ¡m−ul f¡Wc¡e fТœ²u¡ Hhw AeÉ¡eÉ Eæuej§mL L¡kÑœ²j h¡d¡NËÙb q¢µRmz Hac−fТr−a ®Qu¡ljÉ¡e, j¡dÉ¢jL J EµQ j¡dÉ¢jL ¢nr¡ ®h¡XÑ, Y¡L¡ j−q¡c−ul B−cnœ²−j ¢hcÉ¡mu f¢lcnÑL, j¡dÉ¢jL J EµQ j¡dÉ¢jL ¢nr¡ ®h¡XÑ, Y¡L¡ j−q¡c−ul 22.07.2009 ¢MË: a¡¢l−M ew -10/juje/3091 Hl B−cn h−m h¢ZÑa ¢hcÉ¡mu¢V f§−hÑl ÙÛ¡−e (f¡L¡ hs S¡−j jp¢Sc pwmNÀ) fœ Cp¤Él 60 (o¡V) ¢c−el j−dÉ ÙÛ¡e¡¿¹−ll ¢e−cÑn fÐc¡e L−le (L¢f pwk¤š²)z Eš² ¢e−cÑ−nl f¢l−fТr−a 26.08.2009 ¢MË: a¡¢l−M ¢hcÉ¡mu¢V f§−hÑl ÙÛ¡−e ÙÛ¡e¡¿¹¢la Ll¡ q−u−Rz ¢ejÀ ü¡rlL¡l£ plS¢j−e ¢hcÉ¡mu¢V f¢lcnÑe L−l Hl p¢WLa¡ ¢e¢ÕQa L−l−Rez
(®j¡: n¡q£e¤l Cpm¡j)
Ef−Sm¡ j¡dÉ¢jL ¢nr¡ A¢gp¡l
g¥mf¤l, juje¢pwqz
The government authority has empowered discretionary power to
12take decision for settling the place finally for establishing the school building in question. Accordingly, the authority after the said enquiry took the final decision regarding the placement of school building in question. Hence we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned memo.
Accordingly, the Rule is discharged.
The order of stay granted earlier by this court is hereby recalled
13and vacated.
Communicate this judgment at once.
(Md. Habibul Gani, J)
I agree.
……………………….
14Shokat (B.O)
Related summaries.
From the record to your case.
Our advocates appear before both divisions of the Supreme Court. These are the practice areas that handle matters like this one.
- Supreme Court practice in BangladeshSlips, mentioning, cause lists and appearances→
- Case JourneysHow a case moves through the courts, step by step→
- Limitation and appeal deadline calculatorKnow your last day to file→
- Curative petitions in BangladeshFinality, article 104 and the case for reform→
- Constitution guideEvery article and amendment, animated→
- Bangladesh legal glossaryBangla and English legal terms, explained→
