Granting Financial and Administrative Authority to a Non-Panel Chairman Is Illegal: High Court
 |
| Supreme Court of Bangladesh |
A High Court Division bench comprising Justice Fatema Najib and Justice A.F.M. Saiful Karim delivered the judgment. The judgment in Writ Petition No. 2807 of 2025 was pronounced on June 21, 2026. The petitioner, Ahammad Ali, is the elected Chairman of No. 1 Islampur Union Parishad in Baliakandi, Rajbari. The judgment was published on the Supreme Court website on October 5, 2026.
Background of the Case:
Ahammad Ali was elected Chairman of Islampur Union Parishad in 2021. Following publication of the Gazette on December 12, 2021, he took oath and assumed office.
Subsequently, following the death of the previous Panel Chairman, Kazi Shahidul Islam, a new panel of chairmen was elected at a Union Parishad meeting held on November 10, 2024. Md. Kabir Hossain was elected as the No. 1 Panel Chairman and Md. Nuru Sheikh as the No. 2 Panel Chairman.
However, on January 15, 2025, the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Rajbari issued a memorandum showing Mohon Rayhan as the Panel Chairman of Islampur Union Parishad and granting him financial and administrative authority over the Union Parishad. Being aggrieved by the decision, the elected Chairman, Ahammad Ali, filed a writ petition before the High Court.
Issues Before the Court:
It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that under the circular issued by the Local Government Division on August 19, 2024, financial and administrative authority could be entrusted to the Panel Chairman concerned for carrying out the functions of an absent Union Parishad Chairman.
The circular further provides that, in the absence of a Panel Chairman or where complications arise, such authority may be entrusted to an officer subordinate to the Divisional Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner.
However, Mohon Rayhan had never been elected as a Panel Chairman of the Union Parishad.
On the other hand, the government argued that the impugned order had been issued under Sections 33, 101 and 102 of the Local Government (Union Parishad) Act, 2009, in order to ensure the continued functioning of the Union Parishad in the absence of the elected Chairman.
Observations of the High Court:
The High Court found that, according to the resolution of the Union Parishad meeting held on November 10, 2024, two members had been elected as Panel Chairmen. However, there was no document before the Court showing that Mohon Rayhan had ever been elected as a Panel Chairman.
The Court observed that, under the circular dated August 19, 2024, financial and administrative authority of a Union Parishad could be entrusted only to a Panel Chairman or to an officer subordinate to the Divisional Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner.
Therefore, the authority was required to select one of the duly constituted Panel Chairmen in accordance with law.
The Court also examined the birth certificate, death certificate, succession certificate and Master Roll Register submitted with the writ petition and found that the petitioner, Ahammad Ali, had been performing his functions as Chairman while remaining present at the Union Parishad.
Decision of the Court:
The High Court held that the impugned order dated January 15, 2025 had not been issued in accordance with Sections 33, 101 and 102 of the Local Government (Union Parishad) Act, 2009, or the provisions of the circular dated August 19, 2024.
Accordingly, the Court made the Rule Nisi absolute and interfered with the impugned memorandum.
The Court expressly declared that the memorandum dated January 15, 2025 was “without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.”
There was no order as to costs, and the Court directed that the judgment be communicated to the concerned authorities forthwith.
BD Law Post/ Masum
