In the Supreme Court of Bangladesh

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION NO. 6070 OF 1997

IN THE MATTER OF :

Salma Shohan ...... Petitioner.

-Versus-

Government of Bangladesh and others...... Respondents.

AFFIDAVIT-IN-OPPOSITION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.3

I, Md. Solaiman Chowdhury son of Late Abdul Jalil Chowdhury aged abut 54 years, by faith Muslim by nationality Bangladeshi, by occupation service, do hereby solemnly affirm and says as follows:

1. That I am the Assistant Director, Fire Service & Civil Defenses, Dhaka I deal with the records relevant to this case and as such as acquainted with facts and circumstances of this case I am competent to sear this affidavit in opposition.

2. That a copy of the Writ petition No. 6070 of 1997 upon which Rule Nisi was issued, has been served on the Respondent No.3 who has understood the contents thereof. I have been advised to controvert only those statements that are necessary for the disposal of the said Rule. Those statements which are not specifically admitted hereinafter shall be deemed to have been dented by Respondent No. 3. 3. That the statements made in paragraph 1 of the writ petition call for no comments.

4. That the statements made in paragraph 2 of the writ petition call for no comments in this connection it may be mentioned that the word "DIRECTOR" written in different places in the fire service Ordinance 1959 has not yet been replaced or substituted by the word "DIRECTOR GENERAL" Fire Service and civil Defense. So the present writ petition is defective for want impleading proper parties.

5. That the statements made in paragraph 3 and 4 of the writ petition call for no comments.

6. That the statements made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition is not true.

7. That the statements made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition call for no comments.

8. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition it is stated that the respondent No.3 has performed his duties as per rules and regulation and there has been no failure on his part as mentioned in the paragraph 7 of the writ petition.

10. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief against respondent No.3 as played for as because the Respondent No. 3 has performed his duties as per law. 11. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 11 of the writ petition it is stated that the respondent No. 3 has no failure in performing the duties as per law.

13. That the statement made in paragraph 13 14 and 15 of the writ petition is domed by this respondent.

14. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 16 and 17 of the writ petition it is stated that the respondent No. 3 has performed duties as per law. So the allegations brought in this paragraph in doomed.

15. That the statements made in paragraph 17 and 18 of the writ petition are not correct.

16. That the statements made in paragraph 19 of the writ petition is denied by this Respondent.

18. That the statements made in paragraph 21 of the writ petition is denied by this Respondent.

19. That the grounds taken for present writ petition are not sustainable in law and on facts and the petitioner cannot succeed on the basis of such grounds.

20. That the statements of facts made herein above are true to my knowledge as derived from the official records which I verify believe to be true. Prepared in my office

Assistant Attorney General Deponent

The deponent is known to me and identified by me.

Solemny affirmed before me by the said deponent in the court house on this 6th day Assistant Attorney General of February, 2001

COMMISSIONER OF AFFIDAVITS HIGH COURT DIVISION SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH