Abu Yousuf Vs. Bangladesh and others

Abu Yousuf  (Petitioner)


Bangladesh and others (Respondents)

Supreme Court

Appellate Division



MH Rahman J

ATM Afzal J, Mustafa Kamal J

Latifur Rahman J.


August 11th, 1992.

Lawyers Involved:

Abdur Rab-I, Advocate-On-Record-For the Petitioner.

Not Represented-The Respondents.

 Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal No. 212 of 1992.

(From the Judgment and order dated 15.3.92 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 903 of 1992).

Judgment: MH Rahman J.- In his Writ Petition No. 903 of 1992 the petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the Government’s decision dated August 26th, 1991 to liquidate Bangladesh Consumers Supplies Co Ltd (respondent No. 5) and terminate the services of the petitioner and other employees of respondent No. 5 on payment of six months’ salaries from 31st December 1988. In view of the recurring loss respondent No. 5 Government decided for a voluntary winding up of the Company in 1988. That decision was challenged by one of the employees of respondent No. 5 in Writ Petition No. 1816 of 1980. In the Judgment passed on 31st May, 1990 on that Writ petition the High Court Division held that Respondent No. 5 was not a local authority and the Writ Petition was not maintainable and the relation­ship between Respondent No. 5 and its employees was that of master and servant. After the Rule issued in that matter was discharged the Government decided to liquidate the Company through Court so that the officers and employees of the Company could be dealt with according to the Companies Act.

2. The liquidation proceeding of Respondent No. 5 is pending before the High Court Division in Company Matter No. 7 of 1992.

3. Respondent No. 5 was created as a Statutory Corporation under the Bangladesh Consumes Supplies Corporation Ordinance 1972 (PO No. 47 of 1972). It was subsequently converted into a Public Limited Company. It is contended that in spite of its conversion to a Public Limited Company respondent No. 1 retained its character as a Public Corporation as all its shares belonged to the Government and it was managed as one of the scheduled industries un the Public Corporation (Management Co?ordination) Ordinance 1986 and that respondent No. 5 could only be brought to an end by an amendment of the Ordinance by deleting its name from the schedule, The Ordinance was promulgated to provide for the co­ordination of management of the affairs and business of certain public corporations for a limited purpose.

The liquidation of Respondent No. 5 a Company, registered under the Companies Act cannot be challenged in Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court Division when in its Company Court the liquidation proceeding itself is pending for disposal.

The petition is dismissed.


Source: 45 DLR (AD) (1993) 162