Rule 3 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Under the Administrative Tribunals Rules, 1982 a Tribunal before rejecting an application on the ground that the application is not in accordance with sub-rules (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) of Rule 3, should give the applicant an opportunity for making the application in accordance with those provisions. If the necessary party was not impleaded or has not been properly described, the applicant should get an opportunity to correct the application and he should not be taken by surprise at a later stage. Md. Ali Emdad Vs Labour Director and others, 18 BLD (AD) 137.
Administrative Appellate Tribunal
Requirements of appeal An appeal can only be registered after compliance of requirements as required under sub-rule (2) of the Rule 4.
63 DLR(AD)119: Ziaul Karim Farazi & others Vs. Bangladesh & others: Rules 3, 4 and 11 of the Administrative Tribunal Rules, 1982: Under Rule 3 of Administrative Tribunal Rules, 1982 provided for manner of making application which provision mataris mutandis apply to an appeal also under Rule 11. A fee of Taka 100 is to be paid on the memo of appeal under sub-rule (4) plus an additional fee of Taka 10 for each copy of an application as required under clause (a) of sub-rule (3) shall be paid by the appellant in Court fee stamp affixed to the memo of appeal for causing service of notices of the appeal to the respondents. A tribunal can admit an appeal only if it is made in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1)(2)(3)(4) and (5). An appeal can only be registered after compliance of requirements as required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 (Para-11, Mr. Justice Md. Abdul Matin).
Restoration of Appeal
Application for restoration filed out of time.
16 BLT(AD)128: Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh Vs. Begum Mahmuda: The practice and procedure follows by the Tribunal, whose functions are of judicial or quasi-judicial nature, would not be or cannot be considered illegal or contrary to norms of justice unless the practice and procedure follow by the Tribunal is negation of justice or contrary to good conscience, fair play and equity or prejudicial to the parties before the Tribunal. The practice and procedure in question, in our view. being not negation of justice, there is no good reason to take exception thereto, since taking exception to the practice and procedure follows by the Tribunal relating to restoration of appeal dismissed for default for the negligence and laces of the party, in our opinion, would amount to give premium to the negligence and laces of a party before the Tribunal and causing injustice to the other. (Para-5, Mr. Justice Md. Ruhul Ain).
Rule 6 (7)
Limitation– A.A.T. Appeal No.72 of 2000 was dismissed for default on 08.05.2006 and thereafter about 1(one) year 10(ten) months after passing of the said dismissal order this appellant filed the miscellaneous case for setting aside the said dismissal order the explanation which this appellant offered before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal for condonation of delay was not at all satisfactory for condonation of the said long delay of 1(one) year 10(ten) months. So, we find that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal did not commit any wrong or illegality in rejecting the said miscellaneous case for setting aside the dismissal order of appeal holding that as barred by limitation. Considering the facts narrated above, we rather find that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was quite justified in rejecting the miscellaneous case for setting aside the dismissal order of the appeal. ...Nur Mohammad =VS= Bangladesh, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 375]
Rules 6, 6(7), 11
Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985
Rule 4(6), 7(2)(c) r/w
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 135(2)
Administrative Tribunal Rules, 1982
Rules 6, 6(7), 11
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980
Sections 5, 6 and 12
Dismissing the appeal for default–– Appellate Division found that the appeal was filed back in the year 2003 before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. But after long laps of time when the matter was fixed for hearing on 26.02.2008 none appeared for appellants. So, it is apparent that the appellant had lost his interest to proceed with the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for default. Subsequently, on an application for restoration of the appeal the same was also disallowed as the Administrative Appellate Tribunal did not believe the plea of the learned Counsel of the appellant to have lost his personal case diary to be an acceptable extenuating circumstance.
The above discussions it is abundantly clear that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal rightly disallowed the said application for restoration following the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act and Rules. .....Ministry of Forest, Bangladesh =VS= Kiran Sankar Sarker, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 447]
Rule 6 (7) Limitation- Α.Α.Τ.
Appeal No.72 of 2000 was dismissed for default on 08.05.2006 and thereafter about 1(one) year 10(ten) months after passing of the said dismissal order this appellant filed the miscellaneous case for setting aside the said dismissal order the explanation which this appellant offered before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal for condonation of delay was not at all satisfactory for condonation of the said long delay of 1(one) year 10(ten) months. So, we find that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal did not commit any wrong or illegality in rejecting the said miscellaneous case for setting aside the dismissal order of appeal holding that as barred by limitation. Considering the facts narrated above, we rather find that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was quite justified in rejecting the miscellaneous case for setting aside the dismissal order of the appeal. ...Nur Mohammad =VS= Bangladesh, [10 LM (AD) 375]
Rule 6(9)
Administrative Tribunals Rules, 1952
Rule 6(9)
Decision given by the Appellate Tribunal having not been made as per the Rules it did not reach finality and the Tribunal did not become functus officio-It had jurisdiction as an adjudicating body to recall the decision and order rehearing. Abu Taleb vs Bangladesh 45 DLR (AD) 45.
Section 7
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980
Section 10A r/w
Administrative Appellate Tribunals Rules, 1982
Section 7
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102
Penal Code, 1860
Section 166
The execution of the decisions and the orders of the Administrative Tribunal primarily lies with the Tribunal itself and thereafter, with the Administrative Appellate Tribunal–Appellate Division is of the opinion that the respondents cannot avail themselves of the remedy provided under article 102 of the Constitution for having a direction upon the Administrative Tribunal to file a complaint under section 166 of the Penal Code. The High Court Division has not been entrusted with the power of deciding as to how the decisions and orders of the Administrative Tribunals will be executed. The execution of the decisions and the orders of the Administrative Tribunal primarily lies with the Tribunal itself and thereafter, with the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal is quite competent to come to a decision about the mode of implementation of its own decisions and orders. In case of failure, the said writ-petitioner-respondent has been given further remedy under section 10A of the Act. ...Government of Bangladesh =VS= Md. Abdul Maleque Miah, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 12]
Rule 7
Administrative Tribunals Rules, 1952
Rule 7
0rder passed by the Tribunal is declaratory in nature and there was no direction for reinstatement of the petitioner and as such order passed by the Tribunal is not executable. AKM Ali Imam vs DG, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute & another 54 DLR (AD) 5.