ABDUR RAHIM CHOWDHURY Vs. BANGLADESH BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by leave from judgment and order dated 10-7-97 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division discharging the Rule Nisi obtained by the appellant A Rahim Choudhury in Writ Petition No. 5764 of 1996 upholding the order of respondent No. 1. Bangladesh Bank dated 22-12-96 directing the appellant to refrain from performing functions of the Managing Director of Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd. until further orders under the provisions of section 46(2) of the Banking Companies Act, 1991.

(2.) Appellant while serving as the Managing Director of Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd. having been promoted to that post on March 1994, was served with an order by respondent No.1 dated 22-12-96 to show cause within 7 days as to why action under section 46(1) of the Bank Companies Act, 1991 (briefly the Act) shall not be taken against him as the Managing Director of the said Bank. By the said order appellant was also directed to refrain from performing the functions of the Managing Director from the time of receipt of the order until further orders and allowed the Deputy Managing Director of the Bank to perform the functions of the Chief Executive of the Bank. Appellants challenge to the said order before the High Court Division having failed he obtained leave to appeal.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the appellant contended that no reason having been disclosed by the respondent No.1 in the impugned order directing the appellant to refrain from performing the functions of the Managing Director the same was arbitrary exercise of discretion on the part of the respondent No.1 and High Court Division erred in law in not holding so and discharging the Rule. He further contended that there was no material on record for the respondent No.1 to form an opinion under the proviso to section 46(2) of the Act. He also contended that High Court Division was wrong in discharging the Rule on holding that respondents opinion was formed on a subjective satisfaction on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on the materials before it though there was no such materials before the Standing Committee to make such a recommendation. He also contended that the opinion under the proviso to section 46(2) must be a reasonable opinion which a reasonable person might form on the basis of some materials and in that view of the matter High Court Division was wrong in applying the subjective instead- of the objective test as required by law.