Railway Administration — The “Railway Administration” having agreed to the proposal of the plaintiffs for transfer of the suit land it was to be treated as an agreement by the Government. This view, on the face of it, cannot be accepted because the definition of the “Railway Administration” as above was applicable with reference to that particular Act and there is nothing in the said Act to show that it is one of the functions of the Railway administration to make any transfer of the acquired land. The authority which has been given to the Railway Administration under the said Act can be attributed to the Government also in view of the aforesaid definition and no further. [Para-8] Bangladesh Railway & Ors. Vs. P K. Chakraborty 5 BLT (AD)-153.

The definition of the "Railway Administration" as above was applicable with reference to that particular Act and there is nothing in the said Act to show that it is one of the functions of the Railway Administration to make any transfer of the accquired land. The authority which has been given to the Railway Administra­tion under the said Act can be attributed to the Government also in view of the aforesaid definition and no further. Bangladesh Railway and others vs Pranab Kumar Chakraborty and others 50 DLR (AD) 150.

The Railway authority to sell the property in favour of the writ petitioner Samity, is nothing but a fraudulent and created document and on the basis of such document no right has been created in favour of the writ petitioner Samity and this fraud has vitiated everything–– Appellate Division has perused the minutes of the 26th meeting held on 17.04.2004 and upon perusal of the same it transpires that in the said meeting no such decision was taken by the Railway Authority to sell out the land in question to the writ petitioner Samity. However, from the memo dated. 24.03.2005 issued by the Assistant Secretary, Railway Department it transpired that 2.57 acres land has been allotted in favour of the writ petitioner Samity. Since no decision had been taken in the 26th Board Meeting of the Railway Authority, the Memo dated 24.03.2005 allegedly communicated the decision of the Railway authority to sell the property in favour of the writ petitioner Samity, is nothing but a fraudulent and created document and on the basis of such document no right has been created in favour of the writ petitioner Samity and this fraud has vitiated everything. ––The Railway Authority received Tk. 18,24,00,141.56/-from the writ petitioners’ Samity and no point of time they asked the writ petitioner to take back the said money. In view of the above, Railway Authority-writ respondent Nos.2-7 are Directed to return the entire money i.e. Tk. 18,24,00,141.56/- to the writ petitioner Samity with 5% simple interest rate within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. .....Bangladesh =VS= Sher-E-Bangla Market Dokander Bohumukhi Samabay Samity Ltd., (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 586] ....View Full Judgment

There being no rule or service condition that the order of dismissal of the teacher could only be passed after a prior second show cause notice, the High Court Division ought to have disapproved the judicial latitudinarianism indulged in by the Appellate Court below. Post Office High School vs Asgar Ali 46 DLR (AD) 127.

Compensation for loss on account of short delivery of goods entrusted to its care.
—Railway servants’ misconduct inferred. The moment the goods were accepted for booking by the Railway staff the responsibility with respect to the goods lay on the Railway.
Rangpur D.C. Co-operative Stores Ltd. vs. Pakistan (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 365.