Supreme Court Judgments, Summarised

by Barrister Tahmidur Rahman | Nov 3, 2026

High Court Division · Special Original Jurisdiction

M/S Nipun Private Limited v Bangladesh and others

Writ Petition 8043/2016 · Decided 18 February 2026

Read the judgment ↓Every listing of this case Download PDF

2judges on the bench

7pages

24paragraphs

1laws considered

Summary

The petitioner company challenged an office memo dated 30.05.2016 issued by respondent No. 4 of the electricity distribution company demanding Tk. 61,90,063 as the value and penal bill for 2,59,590 units of electricity following an inspection of its meter. The petitioner complained that it was required to deposit 40 per cent of the amount within about three hours on threat of disconnection, and that it paid Tk. 24,76,025 under protest, which it said was arbitrary and against natural justice. Respondent No. 5 contended that the penal bill was lawfully raised after tampering was detected and stated that the petitioner had since paid the entire penal amount, leaving no outstanding dues or further claims. No one appeared for the petitioner at the hearing. Relying on the respondent's ledger dated 26.01.2026 showing that all penal bills had been paid and the matter settled, the High Court Division held that the purpose of the petition had been fulfilled. The Rule was disposed of and the earlier stay and injunction were recalled and vacated.

Issues

Q1
Whether a writ challenge to an electricity penal bill survives once the petitioner has paid the bill in full and the matter has been settled between the parties.

Key points

Where the petitioner has paid the impugned penal electricity bill in full and the respondent admits this on affidavit, the purpose of the writ petition is fulfilled and the Rule is exhausted.
The respondent's ledger dated 26.01.2026 showed that all penal bills against the petitioner's meter had been paid and the matter settled between the parties.
The Rule was disposed of without any order as to costs.
The order of stay and injunction granted earlier was recalled and vacated.

we are of view that the purpose of the petitioner has been fulfilled and as such the essence of Rule has been exhausted.

From the judgment, Justice Abdur Rahman

Law considered

Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, article 102

The judgment

In the court’s own words.

Writ Petition 8043/2016, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 7 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.

Find in this judgmentPDF

1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

2HIGH COURT DIVISION (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION NO. 8043 of 2016

Present:

3Mr. Justice K.M. Hafizul Alam

And

4Mr. Justice Abdur Rahman IN THE MATTER OF: An application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh

-And-

5IN THE MATTER OF: M/S Nipun Private Limited

…. Petitioner

-versus-

6Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resource, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others

…. Respondents

7Mr. Md. Delowar Hossain Khan, Advocate

… for the petitioner

8Mr. Md. Arafat Kausar, Advocate

…for the respondent No.5

9Hearing on 15.02.2026, and Judgment on: 18.02.2026

Page 2

Abdur Rahman, J:

10This Rule Nisi, at the instance of the petitioner, was issued on an application under Article 102 of the Constitution in the following terms:

11“Let a Rule Nisi be issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the Office Memo No. ৮৭.৪০২.৪২৯.০০.০০.০৪৯.২০১৪.১২৫৮ dated 30.05.2016 issued under the signature of the respondent No.4 demanding Tk. 61,90,063.00/- (Sixty one lacs ninety thousand and sixty three taka) for value and penal bill of 259590 unit electricity from the petitioner's Nipun Private Limited against Customer No. 36541735 NOCS Adabar, Mohammadpur, Dhaka (Annexure-D), should not be declared to be without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and/or such other or further order or orders be passed as to this court may seem fit and proper.

12The facts leading to issuance of this Rule Nisi in brief are that: in the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned office Memo No. ৮৭.৪০২.৪২৯ .০০.০০.০৪৯.২০১৪.১২৫৮ dated

Page 3

30.05.2016 for demanding Tk. 61,90,063.00 (Sixty one lacs ninety thousand and sixty three taka) for value and penal bill of 259590 unit electricity from the petitioner's Nipin Private Limited, against Customer No. 36541735 NOCS Adabar, Mohammadpur, Dhaka (Annexure-D to the writ petition). As per the Government policy, the Power Development Board distributed the charge for distribution and sale of electricity from Dhaka Electric Supply Authority (DESA) to Dhaka Power Distribution Company Ltd., and accordingly performing and receiving the electricity bill from the petitioner. On 29.05.2016, the respondent No.4 visited the petitioner’s factory to inspect the installed meter and after inspection he issued a office Memo being No. ৮৭.৪০২.৪২৯ .০০.০০.০৪৯.২০১৪.১২৫৮ dated 30.05.2016, and asked the petitioner or his representative to appear for hearing within 12:00 noon at his office. Thereafter, as per direction of the memo the petitioner sent his representative with a written statement of the authority of the DPDC but they did not accept the written statement, oral statements, unfortunately they did not agree to receive the written statement

13Thereafter on 30.05.2016 the respondent No. 4 issued a letter vide Office Memo No. ৮৭.৪০২.৪২৯.০০.০০.০৪৯.২০১৪.১২৫৮,

Page 4

dated 30.05.2016 imposing Tk. 61,90,063.00 (Sixty one lakhs ninety thousand and sixty three taka) as a value and penal bill for 2,59,590 unit electricity and directed the petitioner to deposit 40% taka of total amount and threatening the petitioner to disconnect the electric line at 3.31 p.m. if default to deposit the 40% amount out of total taka within 3.30 p.m. and then the petitioner finding no other way to maintain the uninterrupted electricity facility deposited 40% taka of the total amount equivalent Tk.24,76,025/=only through Pay Order No.1345465, dated 30.05.2016 before 3:30 PM, thus respondents did not withdraw the said impugned Memo. Hereinafter, the petitioner getting no alternative invoked this forum.

14On the other hand, the respondent No.5 made appearance by filing affidavit-in-opposition and stating inter-alia that all the statements submissions and grounds taken by the petitioner are misconceived and matter of facts. The Respondent’s Company lawfully issued the penal bill amounting to Tk. 61,90,063/- (Taka Sixty- One Lacs Ninety Thousand Sixty-Three) only to the Petitioner Company. The Petitioner was bound to pay the entire penal amount on 30.05.2016. Accordingly, the Rule is liable to be discharged.

Page 5

15None appears on behalf of the petitioner at the time of hearing. However, the main ground taken by the petitioner is that the respondents gave 3(Three) hours to deposit 40% of the total penal bill equivalent to Tk.24,76,025/=only which is very much irrational, mala-fide, arbitrary and against the natural justice.

16On the other hand, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.5, Mr. Md. Arafat Kausar submitted that the penal bill was not raised earlier because the actual consumption could not be detected at the time of regular meter reading due to the use of tempering equipment by the petitioner and the theft detected constitutes a punishable offence under the Electricity Act, 1910 (as amended in 2012), and the penal bill was lawfully imposed under the Clause 17.1 of the Tariff Rules of Electricity, 1989. However, he further submitted that the petitioner has paid the entire penal amount on 30.05.2016, accordingly, no outstanding dues remain in respect of the said penal bill, and the Respondent Company has no further claims arising thereof.

Page 6

17Learned Deputy Attorney General made appearance and submits that it is the settled matter so far the claims of the respondents are admitted by the concerned party.

18We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the respondent No.5. We have perused the writ petition, affidavit-in-opposition and documents annexed thereto.

19Be that as it may, we have given our anxious thought to the submission advanced by the learned Counsel of the Respondent No.5 which is also evident from Annexure-3 i.e. Misc. Bill Ledger (Post- Paid), dated 26.01.2026 that the petitioner paid all the penal bills against his meter, and the matter already settled between the parties.

20Considering aforementioned facts and circumstances, we find that the petitioner already paid penal bill as per the claim of the respondents, and the respondent No.5 admitted the facts through affidavit in opposition, and in this context, we are of view that the purpose of the petitioner has been fulfilled and as such the essence of Rule has been exhausted.

21Accordingly, the Rule is disposed of as per the above observations and findings.

Page 7

22There is no order as to costs.

23The order of stay and injunction granted earlier by this Court is hereby recalled and vacated.

( Abdur Rahman, J )

24K.M. Hafizul Alam, J:

I agree.

( K.M. Hafizul Alam, J )

Related summaries.

High Court DivisionWrit Petition 11828/2016Abdul Baset Majumder (by his heirs) v Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (RAJUK) and othersRule discharged for want of locus standi High Court DivisionWrit Petition 15440/2025Kenpark Bangladesh (Private) Limited v Bangladesh Bank and othersRule discharged High Court DivisionWrit Petition 12719/2024D.H. Euro Hi Tech Co. (BD) Limited v Government of Bangladesh and othersRule discharged as infructuous

All judgment summaries →

Where TRW & Co can help

From the record to your case.

Our advocates appear before both divisions of the Supreme Court. These are the practice areas that handle matters like this one.

Practice areaConstitutional and Writ Litigation→Practice areaAppellate Litigation→Practice areaAdministrative Tribunal Proceedings→

Keep reading