High Court Division · Special Original Jurisdiction
Mahbubul Alam and others v Government of Bangladesh and others
Writ Petition 14950/2024 · Rule discharged as infructuous · Decided 20 August 2026
The petitioners, third-party purchasers of eight flats, challenged an auction notice of 18.11.2024, amended on 20.11.2024, by which respondent No. 4, a bank, invited bids under section 12(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 for mortgaged property including their flats, with the auction set for 09.12.2024. On 05.12.2024 the High Court Division issued a Rule Nisi and stayed the notice. The petitioners argued that section 12(3) requires a separate instrument from the borrower authorising sale without the Court's intervention, which the bank lacked. The bank argued that the notice had lost its effect once the auction date passed. The Court found that the auction could not take place because of the stay and that, after the scheduled date expired, the notice lost its effectiveness, so the Rule had become infructuous. It declined to decide the questions about the bank's authority, which should be raised on a proper petition, and discharged the Rule.
- Whether a Rule challenging a bank's auction notice under section 12 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 survives after the scheduled auction date has expired under the Court's stay.
- Whether the Court should decide the petitioners' challenge to the bank's authority to sell without a separate instrument once the notice had lapsed.
- An auction notice under section 12 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 loses its effectiveness once the scheduled auction date expires without the auction being held because of the Court's stay.
- Where the auction notice has lost its effectiveness, the subject matter of the Rule becomes infructuous.
- Legal questions raised about the bank's authority to hold the auction should be considered on a proper petition, since deciding them against a lapsed notice would be a futile exercise.
- The Rule was discharged as infructuous, without costs, and the interim order of stay was recalled.
Although, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner raised some legal questions as to the authority of holding auction but those questions should be considered on a proper petition.
