IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION NO. 15137 OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

An  application  under  Article  102  of  the Constitution  of  the  People’s  Republic  of Bangladesh.

And

IN THE MATTER OF: M.A. Awal

.... Petitioner

       -Vs-

Government  of  the  People’s  Republic  of Bangladesh,  Represented  by  the  Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka-1000 and others

....Respondents.

No one appears

......... For the Petitioner.

Mr. Md. Towfiqul Islam Khan, Advocate

........ For the respondent No. 6

Mr. S.M. Atikur Rahaman, Advocate

........ For the respondent No. 7  Mr. Ziaul Haque Sarker, Advocate

........ For the respondent No. 8 Heard and Judgment on: 13.02.2024.

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Iqbal Kabir

              and

Mr. Justice S.M. Maniruzzaman

S.M. Maniruzzaman, J:

Today, the matter is appeared in the list for order.

The  respondent  No.  6  as  applicant  filed  an  application  for discharging the Rule contending inter alia that admittedly the petitioner

is defaulter borrower of the respondent No. 6, ICB Islami Bank Limited, Kawran Bazar Branch, Dhaka (the Bank) and that count the bank forwarded the name of the petitioner to Bangladesh Bank for publishing in the CIB list and as such there is no illegality in publishing the name of the petitioner in the CIB list.

No one appears on behalf of the petitioner of the writ petition.

Mr. Md. Towfiqul Islam Khan, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 6, ICB Islami Bank Limited, Kawran Bazar Branch, Dhaka and Mr. Ziaul Haque Sarker, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 8 submits by one voice that the petitioner is a director of the borrower company and admittedly the borrower company failed to repay its outstanding loan as well as the director of the borrower company also failed to repay the loan. The petitioner is an interested person of the borrower company and as such the Bangladesh Bank has published the name of the petitioner in the CIB list pursuant to the list supplied by the concerned Bank.

We have heard the learned Advocates for the respondent-applicant and perused the application and relevant materials on record.

It, however, appears that the proforma respondent No. 9, Haveli Property Development Ltd. wherein, the petitioner as a director took loan from the respondent No. 6, ICB Islami Bank Limited amounting to BDT 10.00 Crore and paid 8.50 Crore and now the outstanding amount is 17.45 Crore and the Haveli took loan from respondent No. 7 amounting to BDT 12.00 Crore and paid 4.67 Crore and now, the outstanding amount is BDT 24.00 Crore.

In this regard, Section 5(Ga,Ga) of the Bank Company Act, 1991 provides inter alia;

“®Mm¡f£ GZ NËq£a¡”  AbÑ ®L¡e ®ce¡c¡l hÉ¢š² h¡ fТaù¡e h¡ ®L¡Çf¡e£ k¡q¡l ¢e−Sl h¡ ü¡bÑ pw¢nÔø fТaù¡−el Ae¤L¨−m fÐcš ANË£j, GZ h¡ AeÉ ®L¡e B¢bÑL p¤¢hd¡ h¡ Eq¡l Awn h¡ Eq¡l Efl A¢SÑa

p¤c h¡ Eq¡l j¤e¡g¡ h¡wm¡−cn hÉ¡wL La«ÑL S¡l£L«a pw‘¡ Ae¤k¡u£ ®ju¡−c¡š£ZÑ qJu¡l 6 (Ru) j¡p A¢ah¡¢qa qCu¡−R;

hÉ¡MÉ¡x- HC cg¡l E−ŸnÉ f§lZL−Òf ®L¡e hÉ¢š² h¡, ®rœja, fТaù¡e h¡ ®L¡Çf¡e£ AeÉ ®L¡e fТaù¡−el f¢lQ¡mL e¡ qC−m Abh¡ Eš² fТaù¡−e a¡q¡l h¡ Eq¡l ®nu¡−ll Awn 20% Hl A¢dL e¡ qC−m

Abh¡ Eš² fТaù¡−el G−Zl S¡¢jec¡a¡ e¡ qC−m, Eš² fТaù¡e a¡q¡l

h¡ Eq¡l ü¡bÑ pw¢nÔø fТaù¡e h¢mu¡ NZÉ qC−h e¡;

Further, Section 27 KaKa of the said Act also provides that;

27LLz ®Mm¡f£ GZ NËq£a¡l a¡¢mL¡, CaÉ¡¢cz-

1. fË−aÉL hÉ¡wL-−L¡Çf¡e£ h¡ B¢bÑL fË¢aù¡e, pju pju, Eq¡l ®Mm¡f£ GZ NËq£a¡−cl a¡¢mL¡ h¡wm¡−cn hÉ¡w−L ®fËlZ L¢l−hz
2. Ef-d¡l¡ (1) Hl Ad£e fË¡ç a¡¢mL¡ h¡wm¡−cn hÉ¡wL ®c−nl pLm hÉ¡wL- −L¡Çf¡e£ J B¢bÑL fË¢aù¡−e ®fËlZ L¢l−hz

Thus, from quoted provisions of the law, we think that, since the

petitioner is a director of the defaulter borrower company and also interested person of the company as such the respondent banks sent the name of the petitioner to Bangladesh Bank for publishing his name in the CIB report and pursuant to the said letter the Bangladesh Bank has published the name of the petitioner in the CIB list.

In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in publishing the name of the petitioner in the CIB list.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in this Rule.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and thus the Rule is discharged, however, without any order as to costs.

The order of stay granted earlier by this Court is hereby recalled and vacated.

Communicate the order at once.

Md. Iqbal Kabir, J:

I agree.

M.A. Hossain-B.O.