HC sets Tuesday order on Tajul, Rumin writ

685
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •   
  •   
  •  
  •  

Dhaka, May 23: The High Court (HC) has fixed Tuesday for delivering its order on a writ filed by two prominent lawyers of Jamaat-e-Islami leaders for preventing them to leave Bangladesh for Turkey.

A HC bench comprising Justice Jubayer Rahman Chowdhury and Justice Mohammad Khasruzzaman issued an order in this regard on Sunday.

BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia’s adviser A.J. Mohammad Ali stood on behalf of the writ petitioners, while additional attorney general Murad Reza stood on behalf of the state.

During the hearing, Mohammad Ali said that a citizen can be prevented from going abroad if his or her passport is expired or if any court of law imposes restriction on him or her from going abroad. But the passports of two lawyers–Advocate Tajul Islam and Barrister Rumin Farhana–had the validity and no restriction was imposed on them by any court of law in Bangladesh. So, the non-issuance of boarding passes by Qatar Airways in favour of them was totally unlawful and illegal.

Earlier, a writ was filed seeking a directive of the HC so that Advocate Tajul Islam and Barrister Rumin Farhana were not obstructed to go abroad in future.

Advocate Tajul Islam and Barrister Rumin Farhana were going to Turkey on May 18 last to attend the annual conference of International Jurists Union in Turkey. But, the Qatar Airways desk at Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport in Dhaka declined to issue boarding passes in favour of them.

Contacted, Tajul Islam said an employee at Qatar Airways desk informed them that he could not issue them boarding passes according to the directive of the OC (Immigration).

Rumina Farhana said the annual conference of International Jurists Union was scheduled to be held in Turkey and Georgia from May 18 to May 23.

In their writ petition, the plaintiffs made the Home Affairs secretary, DG, Immigration and Passport, IGP, Dhaka Airport Police Station’s OC, Qatar Airways country manager and station manager of the case.

At the same time, the writ petitioners pleaded to the High Court bench for its directive for compensation from the authorities concerned.

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •   
  •   
  •