IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION NO. 10032 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:

Md. Mahmudul Karim

… Petitioners

             -Versus-

The Government of Bangladesh and others  

… Respondents

Mr. Md. Nur Alam, Advocate

…For the petitioner Mr. Ahmed Mahbubul H. Khan, with

Mr. Mainul Hoque Howlader, Advocates

…For the respondent No. 7  

Heard on: 15.07.2026

Judgment on: 16.07.2026.

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah

And

Mr. Justice Rezaul Karim

Rezaul Karim, J.

This Rule Nisi was issued at the instance of the petitioners on 14.08.2023 calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the Memo No. n¡M¡/4821/ØV¡g q¡ES ¢h¢ôw ®m¡e/Q¨s¡¿¹ a¡N¡c¡/132/2023 a¡¢lMx 16/07/2023Cw issued under the signature of respondent No. 7 asking the petitioner to pay the outstanding loan amount failing which the respondent bank will take step to sale the land of the petitioner without

any  interference  of  the  Court  of  law  (Annexure-H)  should  not  be declared to be issued without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and why the inaction of the respondents to dispose of the application dated 27.07.2023 submitted by the petitioner (Annexure-I) should not be declared without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and why the respondents should not be directed to dispose of the application dated 27.07.2023 submitted by the petitioner or to allow the petitioner to pay the outstanding loan amount in 60(sixty) equal installments and / or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

At the time of issuance of the Rule, this Court also passed an interim order directing respondent No. 7 to dispose of the petitioner's application dated 27.07.2023 (Annexure-I) within 60 (sixty) days from receipt of the order, in accordance with law.

The facts leading to the issuance of the instant Rule, briefly stated, are as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as 'Officer (Cash)' in Agrani Bank Limited on 27.01.2011. During his service, he availed a house-building loan of Tk. 21,20,000/- sanctioned on 30.08.2016 for purchase of land, and  a  further  loan  of  Tk.  45,00,000/-  sanctioned  on  29.11.2017  for construction of a house thereon. With the loan money the petitioner purchased land and constructed a multi-storied building.

On 24.09.2018 an FIR was lodged against the petitioner and four others under sections 409, 418 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating in relation to the affairs of the Bank, however, the investigation of the said case is stated to be pending. This being a scheduled offence under the Anti-Corruption Commission Act,  2004,  the  Anti-Corruption  Commission  moved  an  application before the learned Senior Special Judge, Meherpur, under section 14 of the Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2012 read with Rule 18 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007, for freezing the petitioner's bank  accounts  and attachment of  his property.  Then  by  order  dated 13.01.2019, the learned Senior Special Judge allowed the application, and the petitioner's accounts were frozen and the property (the very property  purchased  and  built  a  multi-storied  building  with  the  loan money) attached. But record does not show the said order of attachment has ever been vacated, varied or recalled. Ultimately on 18.01.2021, the petitioner was dismissed from the service of Agrani Bank Limited.

By  Memo  dated  16.07.2023  (Annexure-H),  Respondent  No.  7 asked the petitioner to pay the outstanding loan with a caution that contrary  to  that,  Bank  would  sell  the  mortgaged  land  without interference of any Court of Law. The petitioner, by application dated 27.07.2023 (Annexure-I), brought the matter of attachment order to the notice of the Bank and requested to allow him to repay the loan by installments with waiver of interest for having financial hardship for freezing  and  attachment  of  his  assets.  Receiving  no  response,  and apprehending  imminent  sale  of  the  attached  property,  the  petitioner moved this Court, resulting in the Rule and the interim order was passed as noted above.

Mr.  Md.  Nur  Alam,  the  learned  Advocate  appearing  for  the petitioner  submits  that  there  is  specific  provision  in  the  Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012 as well as Anti-corruption Commission Act,  2004  that  once  a  property  was  attached  by  a  Court  of  law  in connection with any criminal offence the same cannot be transferred without further order of the same Court but the respondents are trying to sell the property of the petitioner by violating the said provision of law.

The  learned  Advocate  finally  submits  that  the  petitioner  has already paid some amount of loan and he is also willing to pay the outstanding  loan  amount  despite  his  economical  hardship  but  the respondent  are trying  to sell the land of  the petitioner violating  the principle of natural justice and hence he prays to make the Rule absolute.

Mr. Mainul Hoque Hawlader, the learned Advocate appearing for the  respondent  No.  7-bank,  opposes  the  Rule  and  submits  that  in compliance with the Court's interim order dated 14.08.2023 (Annexure- I), the petitioner's application dated 27.07.2023 was disposed of by letter dated 12.10.2023 (Annexure-X), by rejecting his request for waiver of interest and repay the loan in installments, so the Rule has become infructuous and is liable to be discharged.

Learned Advocate also submits that under condition No. 9.5 of the sanction  letter  dated  30.08.2016,  upon  termination/dismissal  of  the borrower  from  service,  the  entire  outstanding  loan  with  interest  has fallen  due  immediately,  and  the  Bank  reserves  the  right  to  sell  the property without any intervention of the Court and as the petitioner having been dismissed, the Bank is contractually entitled to proceed in realizing the default loan.

The learned Advocate further submits that in any event, under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, the Bank has statutory recourse to sell the mortgaged property by auction if the loan became default one and the writ petition, seeking restrain of recovery of such default loan, is not maintainable in writ jurisdiction.

He finally submits that, in fact, the Bank has not initiated any proceeding,  auction  or  otherwise,  for  sale  of  the  property,  so  the apprehension expressed in the writ petition is, wholly premature.

We have heard the learned Advocates for both sides and perused the writ petition, the affidavit-in-opposition, application for discharging the Rule and the annexure appended thereto:

Two  questions  fall  for  determination:  (a)  whether  the  interim direction of this Court dated 14.08.2023 stands complied with, and its effect on the Rule; and (b) whether, on the facts as presently stand, the writ petition discloses any cause of action warranting interference by this Court with the Memo dated 16.07.2023.

As to the first question, it is not disputed that Respondent No. 7, by letter dated 12.10.2023 (Annexure-X), has disposed of the petitioner's application dated 27.07.2023, rejecting the prayer for waiver of interest and make repayment of the loan by installments. The interim order of this Court required, the application be disposed of in accordance with law within 60 (sixty) days. However, the direction has, therefore, been fully complied with.

As to the second and more substantial question, it is significant, and indeed conceded by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, that Respondent No. 7 has not, at any stage- either before filing of this writ petition or till now initiated any auction or other proceeding for sale of the attached property. The Memo dated 16.07.2023 was, on its face, a demand  for  repayment  coupled  with  a  statement  of  the  Bank's understanding of its contractual entitlement in the event of default; it was not itself an act of sale, nor the commencement of any process of sale. No notice of auction, valuation, or steps preparatory to sale has been shown to exist. The apprehension on which the writ petition proceeds- that the Bank would, imminently and without recourse to a Court of law, sell the attached property- has not, even after the passage of a substantial period since the impugned Memo, materialised into any concrete step. The Rule, is thus completely premature.

The petitioner executed a registered deed of mortgage coupled with a power of attorney over the property so the bank is authorised to sell the property by auction of the petitioner if the petitioner ever fails to pay the loan money even though such situation has not arisen yet and as such the writ petition is not maintainable.

In the result, the Rule is discharged, without any order as to costs. Communicate the judgment and order to the respondents at once.

Md. Mozibur Raman Miah, J.  

 I agree.

Mazhar, BO