Appointed a Nikah Registrar–
Appointed him as such and has power to issue the memo dated 9.9.1997 contained in Annexure-A to this writ petition and as such acted within its jurisdiction. No notice is required to be issued. High Court Division did not commit any error of law while making the rule absolute. Under section 4 of the Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Act, 1974 the Government has unfettered right to extend, curtail or otherwise alter the limit of any such area. .....Moulana Mohd. Ruhul Amin =VS= Md. Motiur Rahman Chowdhury, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 273] ....View Full Judgment

The Government has the power under the second proviso to section 4 of Act, 1974 to extend, curtail, alter or otherwise alter the limits of any area. The petitioners licence as a Nikah Registrar has not at all been revoked/affected but under the second proviso of section 4 of the Act his area has been curtailed which the Government is authorised under the law to do. Mr. Raisuddin Vs Bangladesh and others, 19 BLD (AD) 179.

read with
Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Rules, 1975
Rule—10(2)
The Second Proviso to section 4 of the Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Act, 1974 empowers the Government to extend, curtail or otherwise alter the limits of any area for which a Nikah Registrar has been granted licence by the Government. Moulvi Md. Khurshid Alam Vs Bangladesh, Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and others, 18 BLD (AD)152

As it appears that the High Court Division discharged the Rule holding that as held in the case of Kazi Emanuddin Bhuiyan vs Government of Bangladesh, 12 BLC (AD) 134, and in the case of Raisuddin vs Bangladesh 51 DLR (AD) 152, the vires of section 4 of the Act of 1974 and the Rules 3, 4 and 10 of the Rules of 1975 were challenged and the Appellate Division, considering various decisions pronounced by both the Divisions of the Supreme Court, answered the question in the negative and refused leave holding that the provisions of the second proviso to section 4 of the Act of 1974 as also Rules 3, 4 and 10 of Rules of 1975 are not in any way violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Bazlur Rahman vs Bangladesh 14 BLC (AD) 189.

In the case of Kazi Md Amirul Islam vs Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs reported in 1996 BID (AD) 110, this Division had the occasion to deal with the second proviso to section 4 of the Act of 1974 and Rule 10 of the Rules of 1975 as amended on 19-1-1993, wherein the Appellate Division has held that the Government had the power under the second proviso to section 4 of the Act of 1974 to extend, curtail or otherwise alter the limits of any area. The petitioner's licence as a Nikah Registrar has not at all been revoked/affected but under the second proviso of section 4 of the said Act, this area has been curtailed which the Government is authorised under the law to do. Bazlur Rahman vs Bangladesh 14 BLC (AD) 189.

Appointed Nikah Registrar–
When a Kazi is appointed, his service will continue as Kazi until and unless he is in any way disqualified under the law. It is our view that the Kazi, who was operating as such within the Union Parishad continued as Kazi for the whole area of that Union Parishad, which then became the Pourasava, i.e. he continued as Kazi for all the Wards of the newly created Pourasava until his jurisdiction was lawfully curtailed in respect of some Wards. .....Md. Abdul Motaleb =Vs= Md. Kamal Uddin & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 105] ....View Full Judgment

Muslim Marriages and Divorce (Registration) Act, 1974
Section 4
Muslim Marriage and Divorce Rules, 1975
Rule 5(4)
Appointed Nikah Registrar— The High Court Division erred in holding that cancellation of licence of the respondent No.1 is not legal for want of notice of show cause before cancellation. Regarding the observation of the High Court Division that quoting of section 4 of the Act in the impugned orders is not proper it appears that by Memo dated 14.9.94 the appellant was appointed as Nikah Registrar of 5 Unions including No.9 Goelerchar Union but without cancelling or revoking the above appoint, the respondent No.1 by Memo dated 2.11.99 was appointed as Nikah Registrar of No.9 Goelerchar Union and so the above appointment of the respondent No.1, on the face of it, is illegal, since appellant was denided of all the unions where he was working as Nikah Registrar and accordingly the appellant being entitled to keep at least the said No.9 Goalerchar Union from which he hails, by Memo dated 6.6.2000 the appointment of the appellant as Nikah Registrar of No.9 Golearchar Union, i.e. the union from which he hails, was restored and the by Memo dated 13.6.2000 license was granted. Accordingly the High Court Division erred in not treating the impugned Memo dated 6.6.2000 as an order restoring the appointment of the appellant as Nikah Registrar in respect of his own union. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the High Court Division dated 16.3.2000 in Writ Petition No. 3382 of 2000 is set aside. .....Mosharraf Hossain =VS= Moulana Md. Tofazzal Hossain, (Civil), 2025(2) [19 LM (AD) 112] ....View Full Judgment

Muslim Marriage and Divorce (Registration Act), 1974
Section 11
Muslim Marriage and Divorces (Registration) Rules, 1975
Rule 17
Admittedly, at the time of giving license to the writ petitioner there was no bar to appoint the petitioner as Nika Registrar. New provision was provided on 19.01.1993 incorporating bar to give license to a person as Nika Registrar who has been serving in a Madrasha beyond area for which he was licensed as the Nika registrar. There is no allegation against the writ petitioner and no misconduct has been alleged and proved. The license of the writ petitioner was cancelled under section 11 of the Muslim Marriage and Divorce (Registration Act), 1974 on the ground of offending the provision of amended rule, though when he was appointed there was no such bar in unamended Rule 17 of the Muslim Marriage and Divorces (Registration) Rules, 1975. Aforesaid rule 17 was not given effect retrospectively. ––It is a well-settled rule of interpretation that statutes are to be interpreted prospectively, unless the language of the Statutes makes them retrospective, either expressly or by necessary intendment. The statement of this role has been made in Craies on Statute Law (6th Edition, 1963). ––The license was a privilege created. The right or privilege accrued and prevailing pursuant to the previous law could not deprive that person by subsequent legislation. A vested right cannot be impaired by enacting law. .....Mohammad Forman Ullah =VS= Kazi Mahmudul Hasan Ansari, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 507] ....View Full Judgment