& 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

Dhaka-10 Symbol Dispute

No by-polls on June 6

SC upholds HC stay order

Staff Correspondent
The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday rejected the appeal petition the Election Commission filed against the High Court (HC) stay order on Dhaka-10 parliamentary by-poll, ending the prospect of June 6 election to the seat.
The SC full bench headed by Chief Justice Syed JR Modassir
Husain upheld the HC stay order on the high-profile election symbol dispute case after three days of hectichearing.
The bench directed both parties to move to the High Court which will nowhold a hearing on June 12 on its rule upon the Election Commission and the returning officer (RO).
The rule asked them to explain why allocation of election symbol 'bench' instead of 'Kula' to Mannan should not be declared illegal and why the EC should not be directed to allocate'Kula'.
Barrister Rokanuddin Mahmud, lawyer of Bikalpa Dhara Bangladesh (BDB) candidate in the Ramna-Tejgaon constituency Major (retd) Abdul Mannan, who won the legal battle, termed theverdict historical.
He said by delivering such a timely verdict, the Supreme Court has saved the nation from another farcical by-election like the one in Magura in 1994 during rule of BNP government.
The Supreme Court upheld its image and proved that it is always ready to deliver in favour of justice without any hesitation, Rokan added.
Mannan termed the judgement "a victoryforpeople and democracy of the country against conspiracy".
Barrister Rafiq Ul-Haq and Barrister Tanjib Ul-Alam also stood for Mannan in the case.
TH Khan, the counsel of the appellants, accepted the verdict, but said it was not told why the prayer was rejected. There was no other court above the full bench, so they had to accept the judgement, Khan added.
Legal experts say the fate of the by-poll will be decided at the HC and it is likely to face more legal tangles once the court disposes of the case.
There would however still be scopes to file leave-to-appeal petition against the judgement, and filing of such a petition will further delayby-poll.
SUSPENSE IN
COURTROOM
The SC bench sat at 9:10am yesterday to hear the arguments of the both sides and heard the lawyers' submission for one and a half hours before adjourningfor 10 minutes.
Counsels of both sides, curious lawyers, representatives of different candidates, Election Commission officials and newspersons crammed the court in animated suspense.
After the break, the chief justice delivered the verdict at 11:00 am.
HOWTHE DRAMA UNFOLDED
The legal tangle surfaced in the wake of refusal by the RO of Dhaka-10 to allocate "Kula" to BDB candidate Abdul Mannan. The refusal
prompted Mannan to file a writ petition with the HC on May 23.
A division bench of the HC directed the RO to reconsider allocation of "Kula" to Mannan. But the RO refused again on the grounds that the election law did not allow a reconsideration ofthe issue.
Mannan again moved the HC and received a stay order on the byelection until June 12. However, the EC officials lodged an appeal against the stay order with the chamber judge the same day and the judge referred the matter to the chiefjustice.
The chief justice formed a special bench of the Appellate Division in the same night to hear the appeal. The special bench however referred it to the full bench on May 29 after hearing the matter for two days.
The full bench that started hearing the appeal on Sunday found flaws in filing the appeal.
The BDB candidate has all along been alleging flaws in the process of filing the appeal since it was lodged, but the appellants said those were minor.
Things took a dramatic turn when Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) MA Syed denied to have signed the warrant of attorney or the EC's approving the move.
The court then summoned the EC file and found that it had the signed approval of the CEC. A flabbergasted CEC insisted that he knew nothing about EC's approving the move to file the appeal.