Akbar khan vs Anti-Corruption Commission and others (2010)

The fact of the case:

It is a case of Special Original Jurisdiction of the High Court Division where, on behalf of the Anti-Corruption Commission, the Deputy Director directed the Director of the Commission, Divisional office, Chittagong to issue a notice calling for the wealth statement of Md. Akbar Khan and to notify the head office. Accordingly, the Deputy Director issued the impugned notice. But Md. Akbar refused to submit his wealth statement and under  Article 102 of the Constitution issued a writ petition calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the order passed by the respondents to submit wealth statements. It should not be declared to have been passed without lawful authorities and is of no legal effect.

Issue of the case:

Can the Anti-Corruption Commission be held liable under rules 7(1)(2), and 17(1) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Rule, 2007?

Decision:

The decision of the High Court Division was made in favor of the petitioner.

Justification:

Anti-Corruption Commission or any Commission under the Anti-Corruption Commission has the power to delegate its power to anyone, not below the rank of Deputy Director. So, the delegatee, namely the Deputy Director, if so authorized by proper authority, may issue a fresh notice. But from the fact of that case, the court did not find any authority given to the director of the Divisional office, Chittagong to delegate his authority to the Deputy Director to issue the impugned notice. It is a highly technical legal defect that can be cured. And that notice has no legal effect.

Case Cited: 

Anti-Corruption Commission vs Sheikh Hasina Wazed, 60 DLR(AD)172

Written by---
Fatema Aktar Urmi
Department of Land Management and Law
Jagannath University, Dhaka

Read Also

• State vs Md Ali Reza (2019) 71 DLR (AD) 332
• Masud Mia vs State (2004) 56 DLR
• Abdul Latif vs State (2009) 14 BLC 784