| Muhammad Rahmatullah | |
|---|---|
| Chief Engineer for Public Works Department | |
| In office 1986–1988 |
|
| President | Hussain Muhammad Ershad |
| Head of Capital Development Authority | |
| In office 1989–1992 |
|
| President | Hussain Muhammad Ershad |
| Personal details | |
| Born | 1940 Rajshahi |
| Alma mater | Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology |
| Occupation | Engineer |
| Religion | Islam (Sunni) |
Mian Muhammad Rahmatullah, (বাংলা: মোহাম্মদ রহমত উললাহ, born 13 June 1940 in Natore, Bangladesh) was a former Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department and later Head of the Capital Development Authority of the Government of Bangladesh. In 2000, he was an electoral Candidate from Natore Area for the Parliament of Bangladesh[1] .
In 1991, after former military dictator General Ershad stepped down as the President of Bangladesh, Rahmatullah was charged in the infamous Supreme Court Janata Tower Case and named the third defendant after the President and the former First Lady (and Member of Parliament) by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.[2][3] He was later acquitted when the Judge agreed that the case was filed on political grounds by the newly elected ruling party.[4]
He was the husband to Begum Gule Afroz of the aristocratic SingraNatore Family; the grand daughter of Jalaluddin Mirza, a zamindar of Natore and was instrumental in building the Gole Afroz College (named after his wife).[5]
Contents |
Rahmatullah was born to a eminent muslim family in Natore part of British India. He matriculated from the Ahsanullah College of Engineering and became a public official during the East Pakistan Era throughout the 1971 War of Liberation and then in independent Bangladesh.
Former chief of the Public Works Department of Bangladesh, Rahmatullah was appointed the Chief of Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (RAJUK) in 1987.
On 14 April 1991, the Bureau of Anti-Corruption sued the President of Bangladesh, his wife the First Lady and the Chief of RAJUK, M.M. Rahmatullah. In September 1989, it was alleged that him and the former President Hussain Muhammad Ershad in collusion with each other dishonestly and fraudulently with malafide intention helped to illegally get public land in their favour and then helped private executives to get 12 kathas of land at a negligible sum causing loss to RAJUK amounting to BDT 54,870,900 to obtain advantage for themselves. All other accused acted illegally in collusion with each other thereby abusing their position as public servants (as President of Bangladesh and appointed chief of a public agency) which is punishable under section 109 of the Bangladesh Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
The officials were sentenced to simple imprisonment for seven years, at which point an appeal was made. The High Court Division heard the appeal, along with others and dismissed the appeal with modification of the sentence from simple imprisonment of seven years to a sentence of fine of Taka 10,000 each, in default, to suffer for two years in prison each and maintained the order of confiscation of the landed property.[6]
In the case of State Vs. M.M Rahmatullah, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh expressed its opinion on Article 7 (2) of the Bangladesh Passport Order, 1973 that apprehension on the part of the authority seizing the passport that the holder of the passport will not return to Bangladesh, if he is allowed to leave the country was not a ground for impounding of a passport of a citizen who wants to leave the country for medical check up and treatment. This argument can be applied to many identical situations. Right to travel abroad is a fundamental right as recognized in Article 36 of our Constitution. Supreme Court of India has taken a similar view in the case of Satwant Singh Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi and others, AIR 1967 (SC) 1836 wherein it has been observed that withdrawal of a passport given to an individual violates Articles 21 and 14 of Indian Constitution.[7]
The Supreme Court has upheld the High Court ruling of jail and fines in the 'much-publicised' Janata Tower graft case against former first lady Raushan Ershad and Rahmatullah. Raushan's husband, the former President, however, had been convicted of the charges and sentenced of five years in prison. After three and a half years in prison, the Appellate Division maintained the fine but relieved Ershad from serving out the remaining one and a half years. As a result, the chief of Bangladesh Jatiya Party could not participate in the 2001 Elections.[8]
Loh Wai Kong v. Government of Malaysia