Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation Order [VII of 1973] Case Reference

Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation Order [VII of 1973]

As per the statement made in para 4 of the petition, the outstanding dues of the petitioner corporation with 10% interest was at Tk. 4,87,542.05 till 13.05.2003 whereas the corporation claimed Tk. 11,25,811063/- showing the same as dues on 03.09.2003. The High Court Division failed to comprehend as to how the claim of the petitioner corporation had gone up to such a big figure within a period of less than 4(four) months.

The High Court Division observed that while the case was being tried in the trial court the petitioner-appellant also did not file any statement of accounts or any other papers in support of its claim save and except the petition itself. In such a backdrop, it was not possible on the part of the learned District Judge to come to a conclusion regarding the veracity of the petitioner's claim since it did not file any scrap of paper to substantiate the same. No patent illegality or legal infirmity appears to have been committed by the learned District Judge, Jamalpur in recording the impugned judgment and order. Even, on the High Court Division's query, the learned advocate for the petitioner appellant has also failed to show any document in support of the claim of the petitioner corporation as well as to negate the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Judge. In the aforesaid premises, the High Court Division finds no merit in Bangladesh Red Crescent Society Order, 1973

Article 9C(1) read with  Bangladesh Red Crescent Society (Organization and Management) Rules, 1973

Rule 68-Whether the Writ Petition is maintainability. According to Rule 68 of the Rules of 1973, all disputes arising out of or in connection with or relating to any matter of organization, election, management, etc. of the Society shall be resolved by the Managing Board and when the Managing Board itself is involved in the dispute, by the President, and member or members of any Unit shall not take any such matter to the Court of law for decision.

The High Court Division held that the respondent no. 3 is personally interested in the dispute in that his inaction has been challenged in nominating 3 (three) members to the Executive Committee of Gopalganj Red Crescent Unit for the term 2017-2019 as evidenced by Annexure-'H' series and Annexure-'I' to the Writ Petition. Bias is a state of mind in which an adjudicator cannot decide fairly and impartially. It may arise in various ways and in a variety of circumstances and it is not possible to exhaust the possibilities. Bias may arise because of the decision- maker's general interest in the subject- matter as a member of the administration in his official capacity. The respondent no. 3 as the Chairman of the Managing Board of the Society, according to the principle of natural justice, cannot be the adjudicator of his own cause. Moreover, the Managing Board of the Society itself has no stake in the dispute; rather the Chairman of the Managing Board in his individual capacity as the Chairman of the Society is involved in the dispute. Hence Rule 68 of the Rules of 1973, according to the High Court Division, is not a bar to the maintainability of the Writ Petition. S. M. Nahaz Pasha (Advocate) and others Vs. Ministry of Health and others. (Spl.Original) 19 ALR (HCD) 236-244