Md. Ruhul Amin CJ
M.M. Ruhul Amin J
Md. Hassan Ameen J
M/s. IBTA Bangladesh (Pvt.) Ltd. represented by its Managing Director, house No. 25/B, Road No. 9/A, Dhanmondi, Dhaka and another………….Petitioners
Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Cabinet Secretary, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna Dhaka and others………Respondents
July 22, 2007.
Md. Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-Record- For the Petitioners.
A.K.M. Shahidul Huq, Advocate-on-Record-For the Respondent No.7.
Not represented- Respondent Nos.1-6.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1034 of 2004.
(From the Order dated April 10, 2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.1577 of 2004)
Md. Ruhul Amin J.- This petitioner for leave to appeal is against the order dated April 10, 2004 of a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.1577 of 2004 rejecting the same summarily.
2. The writ petition was filed challenging constitutionality of sub-sections 2, 3 and 4 of Section 41 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 and also alleging violation of fundamental rights as are in Articles 27, 31, 40 and 42 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. The writ petitioner also challenged legality of the judgment and decree (in preliminary form) dated July 19, 2003 passed in Title Suit No. 2 of 2002 by the Artha Rin Adalat-3, Dhaka. The aforesaid title suit was filed by the bank, respondent No.6 in the writ petition, for realization the loan amount with interest. The suit was decreed for Tk.40, 61,701/-.
3. The writ petitioner instead of filing appeal as against the decree of the Artha Rin Adalat passed in Artha Rin Adalat Suit No.2 of 2000 filed the writ petition (affirmed on April 3, 2004) challenging legality of the sub-sections 2, 3 and 4 of Section 41 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 on the ground that the provision therein for filing appeal against the decree of the Artha Rin Adalat upon depositing 50% of the decreetal amount violative of fundamental right.
4. The High Court Division dismissed the writ petition summarily upon observing that the writ petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement and that when the decree was passed against him, he has moved the High Court Division in writ jurisdiction challenging the law as in Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 instead of filing appeal and held “we do not find any substance in this application at this stage challenging only vires of the law as he has right of appeal under section 41 of the said Act”
5. We have heard the learned Advocate-on-Record and perused the materials on record.
6. We are of the view that the High Court Division has committed no error in rejecting the writ petition summarily, since reasonings assigned in rejecting the writ petition do not suffer from legal infirmity.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.