But two persons -- EC Secretary SM Zakaria and Divisional Commissioner Mia Mostak Ahmed, not as the returning officer which he is -- finally submitted the appeal petition against the stay order. It was revealed to the court that at the time of filing the appeal there was no Vokalatnama (a document certifying that someone is a party to a case) from the divisional commissioner.

The stay order came after Bikalpa Dhara Bangladesh candidate Abdul Mannan filed a writ petition with the High Court being denied the election symbol 'Kula'.

However, the documents that the writ petitioner, Mannan, received from the court shows only the divisional commissioner as the challenger of the High Court's stay.

At the time of filing the appeal on May 26, there was only one appellant. The name of the EC as another appellant was inserted later without the knowledge of Mannan's lawyers. Such insertion amounts to tampering with the court documents, says Mannan's lawyer Barrister Tanjib-ul Alam.

The revelations now give rise to new questions. Why did Mia Mostak file the appeal as the divisional commissioner and not as the returning officer (RO)? As the law goes, the divisional commissioner's service comes under the EC as soon as the election schedules are declared.

In that event, since the government is not a party to the case, why did Mia Mostak file the case as a government official in the capacity of divisional commissioner? And since he is an RO he cannot file the case without the approval of the EC. Mia Mostak himself knows the law as he told The Daily Star on May 27: "I have no jurisdiction to do so (file the appeal)".

An intriguing fact surfaced when it was found that Mia Mostak submitted the Vokalatnama on May 29 although the High Court stay order was challenged on May 26.

Barrister Tanjib-ul Alam said the submission of Vokalatnama by the divisional commissioner three days after filing of the appeal raises serious concern about the transparency of the whole appeal process.

About EC Secretary Zakaria's becoming a party to the case, the pertinent question is who gave him the authority. Additional Attorney General AJ Mohammed Ali submitted documents to the court yesterday claiming that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) MA Syed authorised Zakaria and the divisional commissioner. But the court was not satisfied with the documents and asked the lawyer to produce the EC file that should contain the decision of the CEC or the EC.

It also became a mystery as to why a government lawyer represented the EC -- in this case Zakaria -- when the government itself is not a party to the case.

The appearance of senior lawyer TH Khan in the case on behalf of Zakaria and the divisional commissioner left more questions unanswered.

Zakaria claims to represent the EC and if so, he cannot engage a private lawyer, TH Khan, without the approval of the commission. And the divisional commissioner can neither engage a private lawyer as a government official. Why TH Khan then appeared in court on behalf of the two remains a mystery.

When journalists asked Khan about his involvement, he repeatedly said he had appeared on behalf of the "appellants". Pressed to disclose who the appellants are, he named the EC and the RO. Responding to another question, he said: "It does not need to have the EC's permission to file the appeal. Any aggrieved person can do it."

Barrister Rokanuddin Mahmud, lawyer for BDB leader Mannan, told The Daily Star that the documentation of the appeal case lacks transparency.

"It is a clear case of file tampering," he added.

The CEC has all along been denying filing any petition against the High Court order or giving permission to anyone to do it.

"It is just a fraud as we have neither filed any appeal nor given permission to anybody to file it," he told The Daily Star on May 29.