High Court Division · Special Original Jurisdiction
Md. Kabir Ahmed v Bangladesh Bank and others
Writ Petition 16299/2025 · Rule discharged as infructuous · Decided 31 August 2026
The petitioner, a borrower, filed a writ petition under article 102 of the Constitution challenging an auction notice published by respondent No. 3 in the daily Kalbela on 30.09.2025, purportedly under section 12(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, for the sale of his mortgaged property. On 20.10.2025 the High Court Division issued a Rule Nisi and stayed the operation of the auction notice. Respondent No. 3 submitted that the property could not be sold because of the stay, that the scheduled auction date of 27.10.2025 had expired, and that the notice had therefore lost its effectiveness, making the Rule infructuous. The petitioner, by an application for acceptance of compliance, stated that he had deposited Tk. 5,00,000 in compliance with the direction of 20.10.2025. Having heard the petitioner's advocate and perused the writ petition, the Court found that the Rule had become infructuous and discharged it on that ground, with no order as to costs.
- Whether a Rule challenging an auction notice under section 12(3) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 survived once the scheduled auction date had passed.
- The property could not be sold because of the Court's interim stay, and the auction date fixed in the impugned notice had expired in the meantime.
- On those facts, and after hearing the petitioner and considering his application, the Court took the view that the Rule had become infructuous.
- The Rule was discharged as infructuous, with no order as to costs, and the order was directed to be communicated at once.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Rule is discharged as being infructuous.
