High Court Division · Special Original Jurisdiction
Mohammad Monjurul Islam v Government of Bangladesh and others
Writ Petition 15074/2024 · Rule discharged as infructuous · Decided 20 August 2026
The petitioner, a third-party purchaser of three flats, challenged by writ under article 102 of the Constitution an auction notice dated 18.11.2024, amended on 20.11.2024 and published in the Daily Naya Diganta, by which respondent No. 4 bank proposed under section 12(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 to sell mortgaged property, including the flats, on 09.12.2024. On 05.12.2024 the High Court Division issued a Rule and stayed the auction notice, so the auction did not take place. The petitioner argued that, without a separate instrument from the borrower authorising sale of the mortgaged property without court intervention, the bank had no authority to advertise the auction. The bank argued that the Rule had become infructuous. The Court held that once the scheduled date passed, the notice lost its effectiveness and the subject matter of the Rule became infructuous. It left the questions of authority to be considered on a proper petition, discharged the Rule and recalled the stay.
- Whether a writ challenging a bank's auction notice under section 12(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 survives once the scheduled auction date has passed under a stay order.
- Whether the Court should decide the petitioner's challenge to the bank's authority to sell mortgaged property without a separate instrument from the borrower.
- After the scheduled auction date passed without the auction being held, the auction notice under section 12 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 lost its effectiveness.
- Once the impugned auction notice lost its effectiveness, the subject matter of the Rule became infructuous.
- Legal questions on the lender's authority to hold the auction should be considered on a proper petition, and dealing with them where the notice had lapsed would be a futile exercise.
- The Rule was discharged as infructuous without costs and the stay order 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.
