IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH              HIGH COURT DIVISION

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

      Present:

Mr. Justice S. M. Kuddus Zaman

And

Mr. Justice A.K.M. Rabiul Hassan

WRIT PETITION NO.4902 OF 2024

In the matter of:

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

Md. Azizul Alam

... Petitioner

-Versus-

The Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others

... Opposite parties

Mst. Nargis Tanjima, Advocate

... For the petitioner.

Mr. Sujit Chatterjee, D.A.G. with

Mr. Moududa Begum, A.A.G.

Mr. Mirza Md. Soyeb Muhit, A.A.G.

Mr. Mohammad Selim, A.A.G.

Mr. Zahid Ahmed (Hero), AAG

... For the respondent No.1.

Mr. Asif Hasan, Advocate

.... For the Anti-Corruption Commission.

Heard and Judgment on 14.07.2024.

S.M. Kuddus Zaman, J:

On an application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh this Rule was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned letter vide memo No.00.01.8100.722.01.042.19.868  dated  09.05.2021  issued  by  the

respondent  No.3  should  not  be  declared  illegal,  without  lawful authority and is of no legal effect and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Facts in short are that the petitioner who is a businessman was served with a notice by opposite party No.2 for submission of wealth statement on 05.06.2023 and pursuant to above notice the petitioner submitted  his  wealth  statement  on  06.07.2023.  During  inquiry  into above wealth statement opposite party No.3 Deputy Director of Anti- Corruption  Commission  sent  a  letter  to  the  Director  General, Investigation-1  of  Anti-Corruption  Commission  on  09.05.2021 informing him that an application has been sent to the Additional Inspector General of Police, Special Branch, Dhaka for restraining the petitioner from going abroad. Pursuant to above letter of opposite party No.3 the petitioner was restrained from going to Thailand for treatment of his wife on 23.04.2024.

Mst.  Nargis  Tanjima,  learned  Advocate  for  the  petitioner submits that the petitioner is a law abiding businessman and pursuant to the notice of the Dudak he submitted his wealth statement. But before instituting any case against the petitioner opposite party No.3 most illegally restrained the petitioner from going abroad which is unlawful and an invasion the fundamental right of the petitioner as guaranteed  under  Article  36  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Peoples Republic of Bangladesh.

On  the  other  hand  Mr.  Md.  Khurshid  Alam  Khan,  learned Advocate for the Anti-Corruption Commission submits that since the wealth statement of the petitioner was under investigation there was likelihood of his leaving the country for good. As such, opposite party No.3 has rightly issued the impugned memo on 09.05.2021 which calls for no interference.

We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for  the  respective  parties  and  carefully  examined  all  materials  on record.

Undisputedly  pursuant  to  the  notice  issued  by  the  Anti- Corruption Commission the petitioner submitted his wealth statement and no case under the Anti-Corruption Commission Act has yet been instituted against the petitioner.

We  have  carefully  gone  through  the  impugned  memo No.00.01.8100.722.01.042.19.868 dated 09.05.2021 and found that above memo asking for stopping the petitioner from leaving the country was issued by opposite party No.3 who is a Deputy Director of the Anti- Corruption Commission.

The  right  to  free  movement  including  the  right  to  leave  the Bangladesh and enter into Bangladesh has been guaranteed by Article 36 of the Constitution of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh as a fundamental right of every citizen of Bangladesh. Above right to free movement is of course subject to reasonable restrictions and those restrictions  can  be  imposed  by  a  competent  Court  of  law  or  a functionary of the State who is authorized by law.

The learned Advocate for the Anti-corruption Commission could not show us any law which authorizes a Deputy Director of Anti- Corruption  Commission  to  impose  restriction  on  a  citizen  of Bangladesh from the exercise of above invaluable fundamental right of free movement as guaranteed by Article 39 of the Constitutional of the Republic of the Republic of Bangladesh.

In view of the above materials on record we find substance in this petition under Article 102 of the Constitution of People’s Republic of Bangladesh and the Rule issued in this connection deserves to be made absolute.

In the result, the Rule is hereby made absolute.

The  impugned  memo  being  No.00.01.8100.722.01.042.19.868 dated  09.05.2021  issued  by  respondent  No.3  asking  the  Additional Inspector  General  of  Police,  Special  Branch,  Dhaka  to  restrain  the petitioner  from  leaving  Bangladesh  is  hereby  declared  illegal  and without any lawful authority.

 However, there is no order as to costs.

A.K.M. Rabiul Hassan, J:

                                            I agree.

MASUDUR RAHMAN   BENCH OFFICER