& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Hearing of appeal against HC verdict

'12th Amendment and dissolution of UZ Parishad contradictory'
The hearing of the appeal against the verdict of the High Court on the promulgation lor dissolution of the Upazila Parishad was held Sunday for the second day before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, reports BSS.
The Chief Justice, Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed, presided over the five-member bench.
Barrister Amirul Islam, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that after the passage of the 12th Amendment (last year), the participation of the people
through their elected representatives at all levels of administration of the republic was reinforced.
Similarly, Articles 59 and 60 having been restored by the same amendment to the Constitution, there was further mandate of the republic to vest the authority of the local government to''the elected representatives, he said.
The petitioners' counsel stated that the repeal ordinance of upazila. made an act, was in violation of the constitutional mandate (awarded
through 12th Amendment) to which the present government has been a party for revival.The passage of the 12th Amendment and the dissolution of Upazila Parishad arc contradictory acts, he maintained.
The petitions were filed on behalf of Ahsanullah Master, Upazila Chafrman of Gazipur. and Qudrat E Elahi, Upazila Chairman of Sonargaon.
Islam said with the passage of the 12th Amendment, the relevant portion of Article 11
relating to people's participation (deleted by the 4th Amendment) in the administration of state affairs at all levels was restored. The amendment which also restored Articles 59 and 60 spelled that functioning at all levels of the government be further democratised and that.effective participation of the people through their elected representatives in administration at all levels shall be ensured.
Barrister Islam said when the Constitution empowers the people to administer the republic at all levels through their elected representatives, the stripping off elected chairmen (upazila) from power and giving those to government appointed bureaucrats were contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.
. He said the government would always extend all encouragement to the development of local government.
This aspect, he pointed out. was never deleted from the Constitution and remained intact during all changes.
As for the charges of corruption. wastage and inefficiency levelled against upazila as reasons for dissolution, Islam said it was not unique in Bangladesh. There were preponderances of these vices in other countries tn early stages of local governments, he said.
He said wastage and corruption were found in the USA and those were corrected, but those Institutions were not dissolved. In a lighter vain, Islam said the head should not be chopped off to get rid of headache.
Making lengthy quotations from American and British constitutional writers. Islam said the concept of running a modern state without decentralised administration was simply impossible.
He said British colonial rulers Introduced local government tn India late last century and it flourished mostly in Bengal where these acts came into being which
continued to remain in force and valid today. Articles 9.11, 59. 60 and 152 were Incorporated in the Constitution on the basis of past experience, he added.
Islam said Constitution has to be viewed in the light of the historical experiences and added Articles 9. 11, 59. 60 and 152 were not incorporated suddenly. The usefulness of these articles were felt. The local government institution has to be examined and analysed on historical perspective and on the basis of experiences of those countries where those developed and flourished.
Speaking about the experiences of local government Institutions in the USA Norway. France and Italy, Islam said besides doing their own func-' tions. these institutions also work as agents of central government.
As for meeting expenditures. he said besides the revenue it gets under different heads the local government receives grant and loans from central government. The institution also raises fund through various other means to meet expenses. Such acts, the counsel argued, do not alter or change the character of local government.
Barrister Islam said It was true that development programmes are mostly financed by the donors, but that do not change the definition of national government. Similarly, the local government institution in the country which receives fund from the central government cannot be construed as Its (central government's ) part since national government being a recipient of donations is not a part of EEC. USA or Japanese administration.
The other members of the bench are Justice Mohammad Habibur Rahman, Justice A T M Azfal. Justice Mustafa Kamal and Justice Latlfur Rahaman.
The hearing resumes today (Monday).