High Court Division · Special Original Jurisdiction
Md. Saiful Islam Member v Bangladesh Bank and others
Writ Petition 10084/2026 · Rule disposed of with direction · Decided 24 August 2026
The petitioner applied to the High Court Division under article 102 of the Constitution, complaining of the inaction of the respondents in disposing of his application dated 21.07.2026. In that representation to respondent No. 1, Bangladesh Bank, he had sought rescheduling of his loan facilities upon depositing 2% of the outstanding loan liabilities, and he contended that the respondent had taken no step to dispose of it. A Rule Nisi was issued on 09.08.2026 calling on the respondents to show cause why their inaction should not be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Considering the facts and circumstances and the submissions of the petitioner's advocate, the Court did not decide the merits of the rescheduling request. It took the view that justice would be best served for the time being by directing Bangladesh Bank to dispose of the representation in accordance with law. The Rule was disposed of with that direction and no order as to costs.
- Whether Bangladesh Bank should be directed to dispose of a borrower's pending representation seeking rescheduling of loan facilities.
- Where a representation to Bangladesh Bank for loan rescheduling remains undisposed of, the High Court Division may direct the Bank to dispose of it in accordance with law.
- The Court considered that justice would be best served, for now, by such a direction rather than by any further order.
- The Rule was disposed of, with Bangladesh Bank directed to dispose of the representation dated 21.07.2026 in accordance with law, and no order as to costs.
we are of the view that the justice would be best served for now, if the respondent No. 1 is directed to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 21.07.2026 (Annexure- ‘D’) in accordance with law.
