Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Khasruzzaman

and

Mr. Justice Md. Khairul Alam

13.08.2023

Mr. Md. Kamrul Islam, Advocate with Ms. Sanjida Khanam, Advocate

… For the Petitioner

Mr. Bepul Bagmar, DAG with

Mr. Mohammed Rezaul Hoque, AAG, Mr. Md. Serajul Islam, AAG, and

Mr. Bahauddin Ahmed, AAG

     …. For the Respondents

Today two applications filed by the petitioner  have  appeared  in  the  daily cause for passing necessary orders.

One  of  the  applications  is  for correction  of  cause  title  of  the  writ petition and in the said application, it is stated  that  the  cause  title  of  the  writ petition  particularly  the  address  of respondent  No.  9  was  not  written correctly. Accordingly, the petitioner filed this application for correction. It is stated in  the  application  that  the  mistake  was done  inadvertently  and  for  this  the petitioner apologies before this Court.

The  statements  made  in  the application for correction are satisfactory. Accordingly,  the  application  for correction  is  allowed. The  office  is directed to do needful.

Another application was filed for serving notice upon the respondent No. 9 by way of substitute service.

It is stated in the application that the foreign address of respondent No. 9 is not known to the petitioner and the petitioner  has  failed  to  collect  the address of respondent No. 9 in abroad.

It appears from the Annexure- 2 series  of  the  affidavit-in-compliance filed  by  the  respondent  No.  10  dated 21.06.2015 that respondent No. 10 was directed  to  submit  compliance  with regard  to  the  present  status  of  Tariq Rahman’s staying abroad. In compliance respondent No. 10 stated that “To gather information  about  the  official  and residential  address  of  Mr.  Tariq Rahman,  his  present  visa  status  and recent  whereabouts,  Bangladesh  High Commission  in  London  officially approached  the  British  Foreign  and Commonwealth Office (FCO). In reply, FCO  informed  that  under  Data Protection Act, 1998, they are unable to share  one’s  personal  information without one’s expressed consent.”

Thus, the petitioner after sincere endeavour failed to collect the address of the respondent No. 9 in abroad.

It appears from the office note dated 02.08.2023 that the process server returned the notice without serving the same upon the respondent No. 9 since he is in abroad.

Considering the facts, it appears that the notice cannot be served in the ordinary way upon the respondent No. 9.

Accordingly, the application for serving notice upon the respondent no. 9 by way of substitute service is hereby allowed.

Thus, the office is directed to serve the notice upon the respondent No. 9 by affixing a copy of the same on the notice board of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh and also to serve the same on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the corrected address of the house of the respondent No. 9 by a special messenger of this Court at the costs of the petitioner.

The office is further directed to give report after coplying the said order.

The petitioner is directed to publish an advertisement in the daily newspaper circulated in Dhaka and to file a compliance petition.

The petitioner is also directed to file requisites as per Rules.

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Khasruzzaman

and

Mr. Justice Md. Khairul Alam

24.08.2023

Mr. A. J. Mohammad Ali, Advocate with Mr. A.M. Mahbubub Uddin, Advocate with

Mr. Md.Bodruddoza, Advocate with Mr. Md. Ruhul Quddus, Advocate with Mr. Kayser Kamal, Advocate

                            …...for the applicant. Mr. Md. Kamrul Islam, Advocate

Mr. Md. Momtaz Uddin Fakir, Advocate with

Mr. Md.Bashir Ahmed, Advocate with Mr. Ramjan Ali Sikder, Advocate with Ms. Sanjida Khanam, Advocate and Mr. Imran Kabir, Advocate

…...For the Petitioner Mr. Bepul Bagmar, DAG with

Mr. Mohammed Rezaul Hoque, AAG and Mr. Md. Serajul Islam, AAG

  …. For the Respondents

This  is  an  application  for addition of party as respondent No. 13. Mr.  A.  J.  Mohammad  Ali,  the learned  Advocate  along  with  Mr.  A. M.  Mahbubub  Uddin,  Mr.  Md. Bodruddoza, Mr. Md. Ruhul Quddus, Mr. Kayser Kamal, learned Advocates for the proposed respondent by placing the application has submitted that some constitutional  questions  are  involved

with this matter and as such one of the  Advocates  of  the  Bar  filed  this application to be added as respondent No. 13. Accordingly, his presence is required  for  proper  adjudication  of this matter. By referring Order 1 rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Mr. A.  J.  Mohammad  Ali,  the  learned Advocate further submits that though the  petitioner  instituted  this  writ petition  for  public  interest,  it’s  a political matter wherein constitutional issue  is  involved.  If  the  proposed applicant is added to the writ petition as respondent, he will assist the Court to  come  into  a  proper  decision.  He also submits that the  Rule Nisi was issued in the year of 2015 and after long elapse of time, it was fixed for hearing  with  a  view  to  putting  the political matter in the Court and the allegations of the violation of articles 7  (a),  39  and  150  (2)  of  the Constitution  were  raised  against  the respondent  No.  9,  and  these  were referred to the Rule Nisi issuing order

and as such his presence is required to enable the court effectual and complete to adjudicate and settle the questions in this writ petition.

On the other hand, Mr. Md. Kamrul Islam, the learned Advocate along with  Mr.  Md. Momtaz Uddin Fakir,  Mr. Md. Bashir Ahmed, Ms. Sanjida Khanam, the learned Advocates for the writ-petitioner has opposed the application. According to them the applicant is neither a necessary party nor a proper party, and no relief was sought for against him. The intention of the proposed respondent is to defend the respondent No. 9, Tariq Rahman, in the name of constitutional issue involved in this matter and it is a device of the proposed respondent to defend the respondent No. 9 who is a convicted and a fugitive person in the eye of law. Therefore, they have prayed for rejection of the said application.

Heard the learned Advocates for both the sides, perused the application

and other material documents on record.

It is stated in the application that the applicant is a citizen of this country as well as a learned Advocate of this Bar, and some constitutional questions are involved with this matter. By filing this application the applicant expresses his desire and interest to be added as respondent to the present writ petition. It is further stated that he is a necessary party, and for proper disposal of the subject his presence is required, and he will assist the Court to come to a correct decision if he is added.

However, it is to be noted that as per law, a necessary party is one whose presence is indispensable or against whom relief is sought for and without whom no effective order can be passed and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be passed, but his presence is necessary for complete and final decision on question involved in the

proceedings. Therefore, it is settled that no suit can be decided without anyone of the necessary parties.

In the public interest litigation case, when the petitioner is not in a position to provide all the necessary evidence or information, in that case the Court can appoint commission or direct the respondents to collect or provide information or bring their submissions on facts before the Court. In the present case, no such situation has arisen.

It appears that no relief was sought for against the present applicant and his presence is not necessary for disposal of the Rule. Therefore, the applicant is neither a necessary party nor a proper party as settled by our Apex Court.

Thus the application is rejected.   

                  Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Khasruzzaman

and

Mr. Justice Md. Khairul Alam

28.08.2023

Mr. Md. Qamrul Islam, with

Ms. Sanjida Khanam, Advocates

                     ..For petitioner-applicant. Mr. Bepul Bagmar, DAG with

Mr. Mohammed Rezaul Hoque, AAG and Mr. Md. Serajul Islam, AAG and

Mr. Mohammad Mahafujur Rahman, AAG

    ..For Respondent Nos.1-4 and 10. Mr. Khandaker Reza-e-Raquib, Advocate      ...For Respondent No.6.

Mr. A. J. Mohammad Ali, with

Mr. A.M. Mahbubub Uddin, and

Mr. Md. Bodruddoza, and

Mr. Md. Ruhul Quddus, and

Mr. Kayser Kamal, Advocates

... Present in Court.

By filing an application the writ petitioner-applicant  prays  for  a direction upon the respondent No. 6 to remove  offensive  utterance  of respondent  No.  9,  Tariq  Rahman, through  Video  or  Audio  Clips, Recordings, Telecasting, Transmission etc.  from  all  electronics  and  social medias or from Online Platforms, and also  to  restrain  all  concerns  from publishing  such  utterance  of  the respondent No. 9.

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. Md. Ruhul Quddus, the learned  Advocate  appeared  and informed  this  Court  that  against  the rejection  order  for  addition  of  party dated  24.08.2023  they  filed  appeal

before the Appellate Division. But he did  not  produce  any  order  of  the Appellate Division.

Mr.  Md.  Qamrul  Islam,  the learned  Advocate  along  with  Ms. Sanjida  Khanam,  the  learned Advocate by placing this application submit that on 07.01.2015 at the time of issuance of the Rule Nisi an interim order  was  passed  directing  the respondent  Nos.  1  and  2  to  take necessary  measures  to  prohibit  all medias,  i.e.  Electronic  Media,  Print Media,  Social  Media  etc.  from publishing  and  broadcasting  any statement  of  the  respondent  No.  9 until he remains a fugitive in the eye of  law.  But  no  such  direction  was passed  upon  the  respondent  No.  6, Bangladesh  Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC), the controlling  authority  of  all  medias. Therefore,  the  same  direction  as passed  in  the  Rule  issuing  order  is required  to  be  passed  upon  the respondent No.6.

It is stated in the application for direction that the respondent No. 9, Tariq  Rahman,  is  a  convict  and fugitive,  and  being  a  fugitive  he cannot  be  acknowledged  by  any person or authority. But violating the said settled principle of law, on 26th July 2023 in Facebook Verified Page

a Video was uploaded and in a public meeting held on 28th July 2023 arrangements were made for transmitting the statement of the said convict fugitive Tariq Rahman.

It is further stated that the respondent No. 6, BTRC is the appropriate authority to monitor, supervise and regulate the social media, online platforms including YouTube, Facebook etc. But due to bonafide mistake and inadvertence, the petitioner did not seek any direction upon the respondent No. 6 earlier and in absence of any such direction, the BTRC has failed to prevent the said illegal activities of the respondent No. 9.

It is to be noted that on 24.08.2023  Mr. A.J. Mohammad Ali, learned Advocate moved an application for addition of party which was rejected, and on the same day Mr. Md. Qamrul Islam, the learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner by placing a supplementary affidavit prayed for the above direction upon the respondent No. 6 and also prayed to treat the writ petition as heard in part.

Considering the submissions of the learned Advocates and the statements made in the application, we find substance in the application.

Accordingly, the application for direction is allowed.

Thus, the respondent No. 6, Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) is directed to remove offensive utterance of respondent No. 9, Tariq Rahman, through video or audio clips, recordings, telecasting, transmission etc. from all electronic and social medias or online platforms and also to restrain all concerns from publishing such utterance of respondent No. 9, Tariq Rahman, until he remains a fugitive in the eye of law.

Communicate the order.

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Khasruzzaman

and

Mr. Justice Md. Khairul Alam

28.08.2023

Mr. Md. Qamrul Islam, with

Ms. Sanjida Khanam, Advocates

            ...For writ Petitioner-applicant. Mr. Bepul Bagmar, DAG with

Mr. Mohammed Rezaul Hoque, AAG and Mr. Md. Serajul Islam, AAG and

Mr. Mohammad Mahafujur Rahman, AAG

          ..For Government-Respondents. Mr. Khandaker Reza-e-Raquib, Advocate

     ...For Respondent No.6. Mr. A. J. Mohammad Ali, with

Mr. A.M. Mahbubub Uddin, and

Mr. Md.Bodruddoza, and

Mr. Md. Ruhul Quddus, and

Mr. Kayser Kamal, Advocates

            ... Present in Court.

Today on 28.08.2023 after sitting of this Court at 10:30 a.m. the learned Advocates  have  mentioned  their respective  matter  before  the  Court. After  mentioning  of  their  respective case, we started taking of the items of the  daily  cause  list  chronologically. Accordingly,  serial  No.  35  of  the today’s  cause  list  i.e.  the  application for direction was taken up for hearing in presence of the learned Advocates for  the  writ  petitioner-applicant,  the

learned Deputy Attorney General and also the learned Advocates of the Bar and  some  of  the  learned  Advocates who  appeared  earlier  in  this  matter before  this  Bench  on  24.08.2023 when the application for addition of party was placed.

After  hearing,  the  said application for direction was allowed directing  the  respondent  No.  6, Bangladesh  Telecommunication Regulatory  Commission  (BTRC)  to remove  offensive  utterance  of  the respondent  No.  9,  Tariq  Rahman, through  video  or  audio  clips, recordings,  telecasting,  transmission etc.  from  all  electronics  and  social medias or in online platforms and also to restrain all concern from publishing such utterance of the respondent No. 9, Tariq Rahman, until he remains a fugitive in the eye of law.

After passing the said order, Mr.

A.  J.  Mohammad  Ali,  learned  Senior Advocate  along  with  Mr.  A.M. Mahbubub  Uddin,  Mr.  Md.

Bodruddoza, Mr. Md. Ruhul Quddus and Mr. Kayser Kamal, learned Advocates of the Bar raised objection against the above order and expressed their no confidence against this Bench and also prayed for recalling the order.

It is to be noted that after passing the order in presence of the learned Advocates, such type of prayer is unheard of. Moreover, their application for addition of party was rejected on 24.08.2023. Admittedly, respondent No. 9 being a convict and fugitive they have no right to make any submission before the Court on behalf of the respondent No. 9 as per law. Besides, today on 28.08.2023 when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. Md. Ruhul Quddus appeared and informed us that against the rejection order dated 24.08.2023, they went to the Appellate Division but he failed to show any order of the Appellate Division before this Court.

Since in presence of the learned Advocates for both the sides the order

was passed and none of the learned Advocates of the Bar raised any objection or expressed their no confidence against this Bench before taking up the application for direction and passing of the said order on the same, there is no scope to make any such submission as placed by them subsequent to the order has been passed.

Accordingly, the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates of the Bar being subsequent to passing of the aforesaid order allowing the application for direction is misconceived and thus not acceptable in the eye of law.