Can the Government exclude a school from nationalisation without explaining its decision after listing the school and obtaining its detrimental compliance with official restrictions, and what relief may a court grant while respecting the Government’s policy discretion?
Legal record
- Court
- Appellate Division
- Decision date
- 6 February 2024
- Case number
- CIVIL APPEAL NOS.153-154 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NOS. 3939 OF 2017, 3283 OF 2017, 3538 OF 2018, 2586 OF 2018, 1414 OF 2018, 4229 OF 2018, 4230 OF 2018, 4675 OF 2018, 1704 OF 2019, 1705 OF 2019 AND 1706 OF 2019.
- Disposition
- Civil Appeal Nos.153-154 of 2018 disposed of with a modified direction to writ-respondent nos.1-10 to complete Janata Model High School’s nationalisation formalities in near future when occasion arose. Other portions of the High Court Division’s judgment remained unchanged. Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos.3939 of 2017, 3283 of 2017, 3538 of 2018, 2586 of 2018, 1414 of 2018, 4229 of 2018, 4230 of 2018, 4675 of 2018, 1704 of 2019, 1705 of 2019 and 1706 of 2019 disposed of in light of the judgment in those appeals. No order as to costs (p.13).
The supplied decision
Bench, parties & source notes
- Bench / judges
- Borhanuddin; M. Enayetur Rahim; Md. Ashfaqul Islam; Md. Abu Zafor Siddique. Judgment delivered by Borhanuddin J.
- Parties
- The Government and another were appellants in Civil Appeal No.153 of 2018; Md. Alauddin was appellant in Civil Appeal No.154 of 2018; Md. Abdul Monnaf and others were respondents in both appeals. The Government and others were petitioners in the eleven connected leave petitions. Their respective respondents are reproduced in the source text.
Source & text context
Read the full judgment in PDFOpen the supplied document (opens in a new tab)Read the source
Judgment text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
APPELLATE DIVISION
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Borhanuddin
Mr. Justice M. Enayetur Rahim
Mr. Justice Md. Ashfaqul Islam
Mr. Justice Md. Abu Zafor Siddique
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.153-154 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NOS. 3939 OF 2017, 3283 OF 2017, 3538 OF 2018, 2586 OF 2018, 1414 OF 2018, 4229 OF 2018, 4230 OF 2018, 4675 OF 2018, 1704 OF 2019, 1705 OF 2019 AND 1706 OF 2019.
(From the judgment and orders dated 12.11.2017, 30.03.2017, 03.07.2017, 18.07.2017, 04.01.2018, 17.10.2017, 27.05.2018, 13.05.2018 and 22.01.2019 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition Nos.10033 of 2017, 10746 of 2016, 1734 of 2017, 7760 of 2017, 7276 of 2017, 8093 of 2017, 10926 of 2016, 12883 of 2016, 3991 of 2018, 12480 of 2016, 9762 of 2016 and 15917 of 2017 respectively).
Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Education, Bangladesh Secretariat Building, Ramna, Dhaka and another. : …Appellants. (In C.A. No.153 of 2018)
Md. Alauddin : …Appellant. (In C.A. No.154 of 2018)
Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Education, Bangladesh Secretariat Building, Ramna, Dhaka and others. : …petitioners. (In C. P. Nos.3939 of 2017, 3283 of 2017, 3538 of 2018, 2586 of 2018, 1414 of 2018, 4229 of 2018, 4230 of 2018, 4675 of 2018, 1704 of 2019, 1705 of 2019 and 1706 of 2019)
-Versus-
Md. Abdul Monnaf and others. : …Respondents. (In C.A. Nos.153-154 of 2018)
Kaunia College, represented by Md. Shaheen Sarker, Member of the Governing Body of Kaunia College, Kawnia, Rangpur and another. : …Respondents. (In C.P. No.3939 of 2017)
Md. Toib Ali and another. : …Respondents. (In C.P. No.3283 of 2017)
Md. Monu Miah, Assistant Professor, Political Science and others. : …Respondents. (In C.P. No.3538 of 2018)
Md. Shams Uddin and others. : …Respondents. (In C.P. No.2586 of 2018)
Md. Habibur Rahman and another. : …Respondents. (In C.P. No.1414 of 2018)
Lashkerpur Degree Mohabidyaniketon, represented by its Principal A.N.M. Monirul Islam and another. : …Respondents. (In C.P. No.4229 of 2018)
Md. Nojer Ali and others. : …Respondents. (In C.P. No.4230 of 2018)
Md. Tazul Islam and others. : …Respondents. (In C.P. No.4675 of 2018)
Chowhali S.B.M. College, represented by its Principal (in Charge) Mohammad Monirul Bari Bablu and another. : …Respondents. (In C.P. No.1704 of 2019)
Charjabbar Degree College, represented by Oli Uddin Ahmed being dead his heirs 1(a) Saydul Haque Bhuiyan Donner and Founder Member, Charjabbar Subornochar, Noyakhali and others. : …Respondents. (In C.P. No.1705 of 2019)
Sheikh Shahidul Alam. : …Respondent. (In C.P. No.1706 of 2019)
For the Appellants/Petitioners. (In C.A. No.153 of 2018) : Mr. Sk. Md. Morshed, Additional Attorney General with Mr. Samarendra Nath Biswas, Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Mohammad Saiful Alam, Assistant Attorney General and Mr. Sayem Mohammad Murad, Assistant Attorney General instructed by Ms. Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-Record.
For the Appellant. (In C.A. No.154 of 2018) : Mr. Sk. Md. Morshed, Additional Attorney General with Mr. Samarendra Nath Biswas, Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Mohammad Saiful Alam, Assistant Attorney General and Mr. Sayem Mohammad Murad, Assistant Attorney General instructed by Mr. Md. Zahirul Islam, Advocate-on-Record.
For the Petitioners. (In C.P. Nos.3939 of 2017, 3283 of 2017, 3538 of 2018, 2586 of 2018, 1414 of 2018, 4229 of 2018, 4230 of 2018, 4675 of 2018 1704-1706 of 2019) : Mr. Sk. Md. Morshed, Additional Attorney General with Mr. Samarendra Nath Biswas, Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Mohammad Saiful Alam, Assistant Attorney General and Mr. Sayem Mohammad Murad, Assistant Attorney General instructed by Mr. Haridas Paul, Advocate-on-Record, Ms. Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-Record and Ms. Mahmuda Begum, Advocate-on-Record.
For Respondent No.1. (In C.A. No.153 of 2018) : Mr. Probir Neogi, Senior Advocate instructed by Ms. Madhu Malati Chowdhury Barua, Advocate-on-Record.
For Respondent No.10. (In C.A. No.153 of 2018) : Mr. Zainul Abedin, Advocate-on-Record.
For Respondent Nos.2-9. (In C.A. No.153 of 2018) : Not represented.
For Respondent No.1. (In C.A. No.154 of 2018) : Mr. Probir Neogi, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Md. Taufique Hossain, Advocate-on-Record.
For Respondent Nos.2-11. (In C.A. No.154 of 2018) : Mr. Samarendra Nath Biswas, Deputy Attorney General instructed by Ms. Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-Record.
For Respondent No.1. (In C.P. No.3939 of 2017) : Mr. S. M. Rezaul Karim, Advocate instructed by Ms. Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-Record.
For Respondent No.2. (In C.P. No.3939 of 2017) : Not represented.
For Respondent Nos.1-2. (In C.P. No.3283 of 2017) : Mr. Md. Fazlur Rahman, Advocate instructed by Mr. Md. Abdul Hye Bhuiyan, Advocate-on-Record and Mr. Syed Mahbubar Rahman, Advocate-on-Record.
For Respondent No.1. (In C.P. No.3538 of 2018) : Mr. Sharif Uddin Chaklader, Advocate instructed by Ms. Madhu Malati Chowdhury Barua, Advocate-on-Record.
For Respondent No.41. (In C.P. No.3538 of 2018) : Ms. Joya Bhattacharjee, Advocate instructed by Mr. Md. Helal Amin, Advocate-on-Record.
For Respondent Nos.2-40. (In C.P. No.3538 of 2018) : Not represented.
For Respondent No.1. (In C.P. No.2586 of 2018) : Mr. Mintu Kumar Mondall, Advocate instructed by Ms. Madhu Malati Chowdhury Barua, Advocate-on-Record.
For Respondent No.28. (In C.P. No.2586 of 2018) : Mr. Syed Mahbubar Rahman, Advocate-on-Record.
For Respondent No.2-27. (In C.P. No.2586 of 2018) : Not represented.
For Respondent Nos.1-2. (In C.P. No.1414 of 2018) : Mr. Md. Fazlur Rahman, Advocate instructed by Mr. Nurul Islam Bhuiyan, Advocate-on-Record (dead) and Mr. Syed Mahbubar Rahman, Advocate-on-Record.
For Respondent No.1. (In C.P. No.4229 of 2018) : Mr. M. Qumrul Hoque Siddique, Senior Advocate Mr. Md. Momin Uddin, Advocate-on-Record.
For Respondent No.7. (In C.P. No.4230 of 2018) : Mr. M. Qumrul Hoque Siddique, Senior Advocate Mr. Md. Momin Uddin, Advocate-on-Record.
For Respondent No.2. (In C.P. No.4229 of 2018) : Not represented.
For Respondent Nos.1-6. (In C.P. No.4230 of 2018) : Not represented.
For the Respondents. (In C. P. No.4675 of 2018) : Mr. Md. Taufique Hossain, Advocate-on-Record.
For Respondent No.1. (In C. P. No.1704 of 2019) : Mr. Probir Neogi, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Md. Taufique Hossain, Advocate-on-Record.
For Respondent No.2. (In C. P. No.1704 of 2019) : Mr. Md. Nurul Islam Chowdhury, Advocate-on-Record.
For Respondent No.1(a)-1(h). (In C. P. No.1705 of 2019) : Mr. Abul Khair, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Md. Taufique Hossain, Advocate-on-Record.
For Respondent No.2. (In C. P. No.1705 of 2019) : Not represented.
For the Respondent. (In C. P. No.1706 of 2019) : Mr. Probir Neogi, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Md. Zahirul Islam, Advocate-on-Record.
Date of Hearing. : The 30th & 31st January, 2024.
Date of Judgment. : The 06th February, 2024.
J U D G M E N T
Borhanuddin,J: Since both the civil appeal and connected civil petitions involve identical point of law based on similar facts as such all are taken together for hearing and disposed of by this common judgment.
Both the civil appeal arose out of the judgment and order dated 12.11.2017 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.10033 of 2017 disposing of the Rule with direction.
Brief facts are that the respondent no.1 herein as petitioner preferred the writ petition Challenging Memo No.07.00.0000.153.015.06.17-81 dated 21.03.2017 issued and signed by the writ-respondent no.7, Deputy Secretary, Finance Division, Ministry of Finance, preferring the ‘Badshagonj Public High School’ for nationalization at Dharmapasha Upazilla under Sunamgonj District instead of ‘Janata Model High School’ Dharmapasha, Sunamgonj, in violation of the guideline framed by the writ-respondent no.1 and also seeking direction upon the respondents to nationalize ‘Janata Model High School’ pursuant to guideline and policy of nationalization of non-Government school and college.
Background of the civil appeals as well as the civil petitions are that the Government has taken initiative for nationalization of college and school in every Upazilla of the country and accordingly, the writ-respondent no.1 framed a guideline; The guideline sets 7(seven) prerequisites for nationalization; Accordingly, the authority of the ‘Janata Model High School’ filed representation with a detailed information of the school to the Prime Minister’s Office through local Member of the Parliament; The Prime Minister’s Office on 18.11.2014 sent a letter to the writ-respondent no.1, Secretary, Ministry of Education, for taking necessary steps for nationalization of the school; On 21.12.2014, the writ-respondent no.1 forwarded a letter to the writ-respondent no.3, Director General (DG), Department of Secondary and Higher Education, Dhaka, for collecting necessary information; On 15.01.2015, the writ-respondent no.5, Assistant Director (Secondary-1), Department of Secondary and Higher Education, Dhaka, issued a letter infavour of the respondents as well as the Head Master of the ‘Janata Model High School’ informing that an inspection committee has been formed for holding inspection of the school; On 13.07.2016, the writ-respondent no.5 issued a Memo bearing No.37.02.0000.106.49. 002.15-976 enclosing name of 119 schools of different upazillas, barring the school authority from transferring movable and immovable properties of the school and spending money from the school fund in order to nationalize the schools and petitioner’s school was listed in Serial No.13 in the memo; All on a sudden, the writ-respondent no.7, Deputy Secretary, Finance Division, Ministry of Finance, published a list of total 42 schools which are to be nationalized vide Memo No.07.00.0000.153.015.06.17-81 dated 21.03.2017 where the name of the ‘Janata Model High School’ disappeared and name of the ‘Badshagonj Public High School’ was listed in Serial No.33; ‘Janata Model High School’ was established in the year 1931 on 3.02 acres of land; On the other hand ‘Badshagonj Public High School’ was established in the year 1950 on 2.00 acres of land; The ‘Janata Model High School’ consists of 8(eight) buildings having 32 teachers and staffs, 2333 students, well equipped laboratory and library and the school is a recognized centre for J.S.C. and S.S.C. examinations; On the contrary, ‘Badshagonj Public High School’ consists of 5(five) buildings; The ‘Janata Model High School’ is situated in Dharmapasha Upazilla within 0(zero) kilometer from the Upazilla Sadar and the ‘Badshagonj Public High School’ is situated about 7(seven) kilometer away from Upazilla Sadar; In the circumstances, the writ-petitioner on 12.10.2017 sent a notice demanding justice to the writ-respondents requesting nationalization of the ‘Janata Model High School’ but no step has been taken; As such the writ-petitioner constrained to file the writ petition and obtained a Rule Nisi.
Upon hearing the parties, the High Court Division disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the writ-respondent nos.1-10 shall perform all formalities for nationalization of the ‘Janata Model High School’. The High Court Division without interfering in the process of nationalization of ‘Badshagonj Public High School’ observed that both the schools shall be nationalized.
Having aggrieved, the Government and the writ-respondents have filed separate petitions for leave to appeal being Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos.967 of 2018 and 1337 of 2018 respectively. Both the civil petitions were heard together and a single leave granting order passed by this Division on 12.07.2018.
Consequently, these civil appeals arose.
Mr. Sk. Md. Morshed, learned Additional Attorney General appearing for the appellants in both the appeals submits that nationalization of school or college is a policy decision of the Government which is not a subject matter of judicial review and as such the direction given by the High Court Division in not sustainable in law. He further submits that the policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can decide which policy should be adopted after consideration of all aspects from different angles. He again submits that the High Court Division erred in law in directing the Government for nationalization of the writ-petitioner’s school without considering that mere preparation of the list for inspection does not confer any legal right to the writ-petitioner as such the impugned judgment and order with direction is liable to be set-aside. He lastly submits that the High Court Division erred in law in directing the Government to include ‘Janata Model High School’ alongwith the ‘Badshagonj Public High School’ for nationalization which is beyond the guideline framed by the Government. In support of his submissions, the learned Additional Attorney General referred to the case of Raypur L.M. Pilot Model High School vs. The Government of Bangladesh and others, reported in 6 LM (AD)(2019) 269 and also referred to an unreported decision dated 22.05.2022 passed by this Division in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.4549 of 2018.
On the other hand, Mr. Probir Neogi learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that by the memo dated 13.07.2016 the respondents listed the writ-petitioner’s school in Serial No.13 for nationalization imposing certain restrictions and injunctions which were complied with by the school and thus the school authority, students and guardians legitimately expected that the school would be nationalized and as such the High Court Division rightly disposed of the Rule issuing necessary directions. He also submits that the ‘Janata Model High School’ fulfilled the prerequisites of the guideline framed for nationalization of schools and colleges and as such dropping the name of the writ-petitioner’s school is a malafide act of the respondents which is by its nature an act without jurisdiction as such the High Court Division justly and legally passed the impugned judgment and order with direction. In support of his submissions he referred to the case of M/S. Hajee Mohammad Ali & sons vs. Burma Eastern Ltd. and others, reported in 38 DLR (AD) 41 and the case of Abdul Rauf and others vs. Abdul Hamid Khan and others, reported in 17 DLR (SC) 515.
Heard the learned Advocate for the respective parties and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court Division and other papers/ documents contained in the paper books.
It appears that the petitioner’s school was listed for consideration to be nationalized vide memo dated 13.07.2016 with direction to do and/not to do some acts. Accordingly, authority of the school acted in compliance with the said instructions to its disadvantage. Fairly on this aspect, this Court is of the opinion that the school authority has acquired legal right to know as to why their school has not been nationalized. The students, guardians, teachers of the school as well as inhabitants of the locality were mentally prepared for nationalization of the school and they acted to their disadvantage in various ways for such nationalization but subsequently vide memo dated 21.03.2017 they came to know that the name of another school was inserted instead of their school for reasons not known to them. This should not be the policy decision of the Government. The act of the writ-respondent in dropping the name of the petitioner’s school is a clear violation of the principle of natural justice. True, nationalization of a particular school is not a matter of judicial review and it is also true that the policy decision must be left to the Government. But the court can consider whether a decision making authority exceeded its power, committed an error of law, violated rules of natural justice, reached a decision which no reasonable man would have reached or otherwise abuse its power.
In view of the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order alongwith the direction passed by the High Court Division. But considering the discussions made above and for the reasons stated therein, we are modifying direction of the High Court Division passed in the operative portion of the impugned judgment and order in the following manner:
“We, therefore direct the respondent nos.1-10 to do all the formalities for nationalization of ‘Janata Model High School’ in near future when occasion arose.”
The other portions of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court Division shall remain as it is.
Accordingly, both the Civil Appeal Nos.153-154 of 2018 are disposed of with the above modification and direction. Connected Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal are disposed of in the light of the judgment and order delivered in C.A. Nos.153-154 of 2018.
No order as to costs.
J.
J.
J.
J.
The 6th February, 2024.
A closer reading · editorial inquiry
ain.bd scrutiny
Editorial interpretation and criticism, separate from the source text.
Editorial analysis: source and scope
The text above reproduces the supplied 13-page judgment, including its case heading, parties, appearances and final order. The judgment has no printed paragraph numbers. All page pinpoints below refer to its PDF pages, which coincide with the printed page numbers from page 2 onward. Physical line wraps have been joined, running page numbers and the final production notation have been removed, and the associations between the columns in the front matter have been retained. Original spelling, grammar, punctuation and case-number lists have been preserved. The supplied document contains no reporter headnote, footnotes or separate opinion. The summary, question, details and this scrutiny are editorial material, not additional reasons of the Court.
The Court treats two appeals and eleven leave petitions together because they involve an identical legal point on similar facts (p.4). Its substantive factual discussion concerns Janata Model High School. It does not separately explain the circumstances of each connected petition. That distinction matters when assessing how far the common disposal resolves an individual college’s or teacher’s position (pp.5-8, 13).
The necessary rule: policy discretion does not remove procedural accountability
The decisive reasoning begins on page 11. The Court finds that the school was listed for consideration under the memorandum of 13 July 2016, received instructions governing its conduct, and complied to its disadvantage. From those circumstances it derives a legal right to know why nationalisation did not follow. On page 12 it holds that removing the school without known reasons breached natural justice. The necessary rule is therefore tied to an official selection process, restrictive instructions, detrimental compliance and unexplained exclusion. Mere optimism about Government policy is a materially weaker case.
The Court’s statement that nationalisation of a particular school is outside judicial review must be read with its immediate qualification. The same passage permits review for excess of power, error of law, breach of natural justice, an unreasonable decision or abuse of power (p.12). Read together, the propositions reserve the policy choice to Government while subjecting the way it exercises that choice to legal control. Reading the first statement as absolute immunity would contradict both the qualification and the Court’s actual intervention.
The interpretative work here concerns the scope of judicial review and the application of natural justice. The judgment does not construe a quoted statutory provision or set out the seven prerequisites in the nationalisation guideline. Nor does it expressly invoke Article 102. As constitutional context supplied by this analysis, Article 102(2)(a)(i)-(ii) provides for orders enforcing lawful public duties and declarations concerning action taken without lawful authority, subject to its conditions. That distinction between legal control and administrative choice helps explain the reasoning, but it should not be presented as an express constitutional analysis undertaken in this judgment.
Why the reliance finding matters, and where its explanation is thin
The strongest feature of the reasoning is that the Government had asked the school to bear restrictions before withdrawing the anticipated benefit. The factual account identifies restrictions on transferring property and spending school funds (pp.6-7). These are concrete constraints on institutional management. They support a stronger demand for an explanation than the students’ and residents’ mental preparation for nationalisation, which the Court also mentions on page 12. An administration that obtains compliance through a formal process should be able to explain its later departure from that process.
Nevertheless, the judgment does not specify the financial or operational loss caused by compliance, or identify the evidence supporting its wider statement that students, guardians and others acted to their disadvantage (pp.11-12). More seriously, it moves directly from reasons being unknown to a finding that natural justice was violated. It does not distinguish a failure to disclose reasons from a failure to offer a hearing, explain what opportunity to respond was required, or identify whether any justification was put forward in the decision-making record. These gaps limit the precision of the procedural duty established.
The respondent’s legitimate-expectation and mala-fides arguments appear in counsel’s submissions (pp.10-11). The Court’s own reasoning establishes a right to know the reasons for exclusion; it does not expressly formulate a substantive legitimate-expectation test or make a distinct finding of bad faith. It would overstate the decision to report that every provisionally selected school acquired an unconditional right to nationalisation, or that the Court proved an improper political motive.
The strongest counterargument: an explanation is different from an entitlement
The Government’s strongest objection was that preparation of an inspection list conferred no legal right to nationalisation and that directing inclusion of both schools exceeded the guideline (pp.9-10). A provisional process must leave room for a lawful change of decision. The Court could reject unexplained withdrawal without holding that the original proposal had become irrevocable. Its own statement that the school was listed for consideration supports that distinction (p.11).
That objection does not answer the school’s narrower procedural claim. Even if the Government retained power to select another school, it could still owe an explanation to an institution it had subjected to restrictive instructions. The difficulty lies in relief. A duty to explain does not, without further reasoning, establish a duty to carry out the substantive transaction. The judgment does not reproduce the guideline, determine that only one lawful outcome remained, or explain why a reasoned reconsideration could not provide an adequate remedy. The absence of that bridge is its central doctrinal weakness.
The remedy reaches further than the stated procedural right
On page 13 the Court directs completion of the nationalisation formalities for Janata Model High School, qualified by the words “in near future when occasion arose.” It also preserves the other portions of the High Court Division’s judgment. Earlier, it records that the High Court Division had left Badshagonj’s nationalisation process undisturbed and contemplated nationalisation of both schools (p.8). The Appellate Division therefore did more than require reasons, while stopping short of declaring immediate nationalisation.
A possible defence of this remedy is that it recognises the school’s detrimental reliance while allowing Government to choose a suitable future occasion. But the judgment does not explain how that occasion will be identified, who must initiate it, or when the duty becomes enforceable. The wording creates two risks at once: it may constrain the eventual policy outcome beyond the right established in the reasons, yet leave the successful school waiting indefinitely. A defined period for disclosure of reasons and lawful reconsideration would have matched the procedural finding more closely. That is an alternative proposed by this analysis, not the order the Court made.
The judgment also leaves the Government’s guideline objection substantially unanswered. If nationalising both schools conflicts with the operative criteria, postponement alone does not explain how the conflict disappears. Conversely, if the criteria permit an exception or a later selection, identifying that basis would make the direction easier to apply. The supplied judgment does not provide the guideline or the underlying memoranda in full, so this analysis cannot determine which possibility the actual instruments support.
Authorities, precedent and practical limits
The four earlier decisions identified in the judgment are recorded as authorities cited by counsel (pp.10-11). The Court does not set out their ratios, distinguish their facts or explain how they support its final remedy. Their appearance in the submissions should therefore be kept separate from the rule actually declared on pages 11-12. In particular, this judgment supplies no reasoned basis for claiming that it overruled Raypur L.M. Pilot Model High School or the unreported decision of 22 May 2022.
Article 111 makes law declared by the Appellate Division binding on the High Court Division and gives Supreme Court declarations of law binding force in subordinate courts. The interpretative question is what law this case declares. Its strongest precedential application concerns unexplained withdrawal after official restrictions and detrimental compliance. The general list of review grounds on page 12 does not establish that every listed defect occurred here. Nor does the future-facing direction create a universal entitlement for schools omitted from a nationalisation list.
Finally, disposal of the connected petitions in light of the appeals does not expressly pronounce every institution in them nationalised (p.13). Any application to a connected matter must account for its own challenged order and facts. The supplied source also establishes neither later compliance with this judgment nor the present nationalisation status of either school. Those matters remain outside this post’s factual claims.
References & source notes
Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and another v Md. Abdul Monnaf and others, Civil Appeal Nos.153-154 of 2018 with eleven connected civil petitions for leave to appeal (Supreme Court of Bangladesh, Appellate Division, 6 February 2024), pp.1-4 (heading, bench and appearances), 5-8 (background), 9-11 (submissions), 11-12 (reasons), 12-13 (disposition). Supplied PDF: https://ain.bd/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/Govt.-of-Bangladesh-and-anr.-Vs-Md.-Abdul-Monnaf-and-ors.pdf
Supreme Court of Bangladesh, official publication of the same judgment: https://supremecourt.gov.bd/resources/documents/2112454_C.A.Nos.153-154_of_2018.pdf
Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Article 102(2)(a)(i)-(ii), official Bangladesh Laws text. Constitutional context for this editorial analysis; not expressly cited in the judgment: https://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-367/section-24659.html ; official Part VI text: https://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-367/act-part-print-203.html
Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Article 111, official Bangladesh Laws text. Used in this editorial analysis to explain binding effect; not expressly cited in the judgment: https://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-367/section-24668.html
Raypur L.M. Pilot Model High School vs. The Government of Bangladesh and others, 6 LM (AD) (2019) 269. Citation reproduced from the Government’s submissions at p.10 of the supplied judgment; the earlier decision’s full text is not supplied or independently analysed here.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.4549 of 2018 (Appellate Division, unreported decision dated 22 May 2022). Identified in the Government’s submissions at p.10 of the supplied judgment; party names and the earlier decision’s full reasoning are not supplied or independently analysed here.
M/S. Hajee Mohammad Ali & sons vs. Burma Eastern Ltd. and others, 38 DLR (AD) 41. Citation reproduced from the respondents’ submissions at p.11 of the supplied judgment; the earlier decision’s full text is not supplied or independently analysed here.
Abdul Rauf and others vs. Abdul Hamid Khan and others, 17 DLR (SC) 515. Citation reproduced from the respondents’ submissions at p.11 of the supplied judgment; the earlier decision’s full text is not supplied or independently analysed here.
About the contributor
Md. Ibrahim Khalilullah
Editor-in-Chief