LIST OF SELECTED PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) OF BELA The concept of public interest litigation as has emerged into

the judicial administration of Bangladesh is yet to mature with the concept of justice guaranteed by the Constitution. This is a crucial concept in a country like ours where 65% of the total populace have no or less access to judiciary although the constitution commits for equality before law, justice, right to life and equal enjoyment of fundamental rights by all citizens. With obvious socio-economic constraints and a long history of feudal past, the realization of legally recognized rights is still subject for movement by various social and pressure groups. In recent time the movement for enjoyment of rights took a new dimension as the potential of judiciary is being increasingly emphasized by the activists and the courts are dealing with cases seeking relief against administrative anarchy and ignorance. It was interesting to note that the concept of PIL is developing in Bangladesh as a performance of public duty by some citizens groups holding or advocating in support of progressive ideologies. Thus in 1994 a petition was first taken before the High Court by a national non-governmental organization called Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) on behalf of the people of a locality where a disputed development action was being implemented. The petition was at first rejected by the court on the ground of standing of the organization. An appeal was preferred from that rejection where the core question was whether groups like BELA with dedicated and sincere record of activism can claim to have acquired sufficient interest to seek judicial redress against anarchy in its own field of action. The question was vital as it was a constitutional requirement under Article 102 that it is only a person aggrieved who can file petitions for enforcement of fundamental rights. Being responded by the Supreme Court in the positive this became the turning point in the history of PIL in Bangladesh. BELA that led the movement for opening up the horizon of PIL in Bangladesh has filed the cases noted below: 1. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Election Commission & others Writ Petition No. 186/1994 (Nuisance during Election Campaign) The first ever-environmental litigation was filed in 1994 in the form of a Writ Petition in the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh by a group of environmental lawyers called the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA). It was filed against the four authorities of the Government responsible for the enforcement of various civic rights, and accordingly, the respondent was the State. The election of the four Municipal Corporations of the country, held at the beginning of this year, evidenced gross violation of some legal obligations and, consequently, interfered with the various rights of the people. The unlawful activities created by the election campaign resulted in encroaching on public properties, restricting and depriving the rights to life, property, enjoyment of public resources, etc. of the city dwellers. The footpaths and other public places were saturated with election camps; incessant use of loudspeakers and other noisy instruments rendered life miserable; the walls of the four major cities of the country where the elections were being held were all covered with election slogans; unscheduled and unregulated processions created serious traffic jams, and so on. Repeated appeals by the Election Commission for showing respect to the laws of the country were virtually ignored. All this anarchy prompted the institution of a petition where the Honble Court issued rule nisi upon the respondents asking them to show cause as to why they should not be directed to comply with the directive issued by the Election Commissioner touching upon the various acts and laws and rules. The Court also considered the prayer of the petitioner to restrain the Election Commissioner from holding the election till full compliance with the respondents. The rule, however, was disposed of, following assurance from the Attorney General that the Government would take all necessary steps to implement all the directives of the Election Commission.

2. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh & others Writ Petition No. 891/1994 (Industrial Pollution Case) In 1994 BELA filed this Writ Petition seeking relief against indiscriminate pollution of air, water, soil and the environment by 903 industries of 14 sectors identified as polluters by the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives (LGRDC) vide Gazette notification dated 7 August 1986. The 14 sectors include Tanneries, Paper and Pulp, Sugar Mills, Distilleries, Iron and Steel, Fertilizer, Insecticide and Pesticide Industries, Chemical Industries, Cement, Pharmaceuticals, Textile, Rubber and Plastic, Tyre and Tube and Jute. The Notification of 7th August 1986 directed the Department of Environment (DoE), the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and the Ministry of Industries to ensure within three years that appropriate pollution control measures were undertaken by those industries. The Notification also required the said authorities to ensure that no new industry could be set up without pollution fighting devices. But unfortunately, even after the lapse of eight years when no measure was taken the above Petition was filed. After seven years since the date of filling of the petition on the 15 July of 2001, the court has directed the Directed General, Department of Environment to implement the decision taken with regard to mitigation of pollution by 903 industries identified as polluters within the time frame of six months from the date of the judgment. The Petitioner pleaded that the ecological system of the country more particularly the air and water including the major rivers (Buriganga, Surma, Karnaphuli and so on) are being severely affected by the identified 903 industries and that no affirmative action has been taken in furtherance of the decisions of the Gazette dated 7th August, 1986. Rather the number of polluting industries has multiplied as the recent list prepared by the DoE shows that the number of polluting industries have risen up to 1176. The Court earlier issued Rule Nisi to the Respondents including the LGRDC, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Ministry of Industries and Department of Environment to show cause as to why they should be directed to implement the decisions of the Government dated 5 June, 1986 which was published in the official Gazette. After hearing the Petitioner, the Rule has been made absolute today and the DG, DoE has been directed to Report to this Court after six months by furnishing concerned affidavit showing that compliance of this Order of this Court. To ensure implementation of the Court directions, the Honble High Court further held that It will be imperative on the part of the Director General to take penal action against such department for persons who are responsible for not implementing the letter of the Environment Conservation Act, 1995. 3. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh & others Writ Petition No. 1783/1994 (Doctor's Strike Case) This Writ Petition was filed on 3.10.94 by Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque in the Vacation Bench of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court praying intervention of the Hon'ble Court in restoring the public medical services and care all over the country disrupted by the continuous strike of BCS (Health) Cadre doctors. The petition was filed against the following respondents: (1) Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, (2) the Director General of Health Services, (3) the Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council and (4) the Bangladesh Medical Association. In this writ petition the petitioner challenged the continuance of strike by the doctors of all the Government Medical Hospitals, Health Complexes and Centres since September 21, 1994. It was submitted that due to long strike by the Government Doctors BCS (Health Cadre) in the Government Medical Hospitals, Health Complexes and Centres the entire system for getting treatment by the people has become paralysed and the sufferings of the people knew no bounds. News of sufferings
2

of the people was being published in the several daily Newspapers everyday for the indefinite strike by the Government doctors BCS (Health Cadre) through out the country. Since it was a case of great public importance and since it involves the interest of the nation as whole, Court issued Rule and grant mandatory injunction calling upon the respondents to show cause why their failure to perform their statutory and Constitutional duties to ensure health services and medical care to the general public, arising out of the abstention from duties by the striking doctors, since 21 September, 1994 should not be declared illegal and why they should not be directed to restore, provide and ensure the public medical services immediately through out the country in all Government Medical Hospitals, Complexes and Centres and why their call for an indefinite strike began on 21 September, 1994 resulting thereby wilful absence of the doctors of BCS (Health Cadre) as members of the Association from their statutory and public duties causing threat to life and body should not be declared to have been made against public interest, without any lawful authority and is of no legal effect. Pending hearing of the Rule, the Respondents were directed by way of mandatory injunction to call off the strike of the doctors BCS (Health Cadre) of all the Government Medical Hospitals, Complexes and Centres immediately with effect within 24 hours from the date of service of notice and to join their offices respectively. 4. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh & others Writ Petition No. 300/1995 (Vehicular Pollution Case) This writ petition was filed by BELA seeking appropriate direction upon the Respondents to perform their statutory public duties and functions for controlling environmental pollution created by motor vehicles and to take effective measures to ensure the most appropriate mitigative measures, devices and methods to prevent further aggravation and danger to life and public health. The petition was filed against 13 Respondents, namely, (1) The Secretary, Ministry of Communications; (2) The Chairman, Bangladesh Road Transport Authority; (3) The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs; (4) The Commissioner, Dhaka Metropolitan Police; (5) The Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest; (6) The Director General, Department of Environment; (7) The Dhaka City Corporation; (8) The Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, (9) The Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, (10) The Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, (11) Chairman, Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation, (12) The Secretary, Ministry of Industries, and (13) The Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institution. In his submission the petitioner stated that the air pollution from faulty motor vehicles has been universally identified as a major threat to human body and life. Such pollution in Dhaka City is acute and incompatible with the conditions required for the growth of human life and ecology. The lives of the City dwellers and its environment are endangered and the failures of the respondents in the performance of their statutory and public duties are depriving people of their fundamental rights disturbing the public peace creating public annoyance. He submitted that the lead-laced gas emitted because of the use of leaded petroleum were severely affecting the lungs, liver, brain and the nervous system, resulting to high blood pressure, IQ and memory-retention damage among children and damage to foetuses leading to deformed babies. The high sulphur content in the petroleum, and hence in the smoke, causes severe damage to the ecology. The main thrust of Dr. Farooque's submission was that although the right to a safe and healthy environment has not been directly specified in the Constitution as a fundamental right, such a right is inherent and integrated in the "right to life" as enshrined in Article 32 of the Constitution. Hence, the right to a sound environment was also a fundamental right under Article 32 being supported by Article 31 that ensures that no action detrimental to life, body, property could be taken. Therefore, the failures of the Respondents in their duties denied the people of their basic fundamental right.
3

Upon hearing the Petition, the Court issued a rule nisi upon the Respondent to show cause as to why they should not be directed to take all adequate and effective measures to check pollution caused due to the emissions of hazardous smokes from the motor vehicles and the use of audible signaling devices giving unduly harsh, shrill, loud or alarming noise. The matter was pending for a long time and after a lapse of 7 years, on the 27 th March of 2002 the High Court has directed the government to phase out all two stroke vehicles from city street by December 2002. The court also directed that all petrol and diesel-fuelled government vehicles have to be converted into Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) powered within six months and pneumatic horns being discarded within 30 days. It asked the Bangladesh Road Transport Authority (BRTA) to check fitness of vehicles, using computerized system with immediate effect. The court also asked the government to ensure international standard of fuel by reducing or eliminating toxic elements. The High Court further directed the government to set up adequate number of CNG filling stations within six months and to ensure that all cars imported since July 2001 be fitted with catalytic converter. The government was also asked to strictly comply with its decision to ban two stroke vehicles of over nine years old. BELA also prayed for ensuring that the exemption of motor cycles from the requirement of certificate of fitness under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1983 be withdrawn immediately which was also directed by the Court. On behalf of the government BRTA, Dhaka Metropolitan Police, Environment Ministry, Department of Environment, Commerce Ministry and Ministry of energy and mineral resources submitted testimony (affidavit) in opposition before court. The matter is pending for further monitoring.

5. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh & others Writ Petition No. 466/1995 (Partial Propaganda in BTV) This Petition was filed by BELA in perspective of violation of its own programme policy by the Bangladesh Television (BTV) by telecasting the political views of the ruling party, distorting the facts and the glorious history of our liberation war, which is contrary to the Preamble, Article 11 and 39 of our Constitution. It was mentioned that the use, misuse and abuse of the BTV by the Government, the ruling political party and its allies and front organizations as their own party property has misled, agitated and dissatisfied the nation whose sacrifices and aspirations during the process of the restoration of democracy has been seriously undermined, frustrated and disgraced. The Respondents by allowing the Government, the Ruling party and its allies to exploit the BTV for their narrow partisan interest have assisted them to breach and act contrary to their public commitment of granting autonomy to the said media as were agreed in the election manifesto of the party, and hence the Respondents need to be directed to stop such arbitrary activity and refrain from politicisation of the public media. The misuse and abuse of BTV by the Government and its front organisations is a clear violation of the public commitments and trust.
4

It was also mentioned by the Petitioner that the BTV is a public property, being managed "on behalf of the people" by the Respondents, being paid by the people and the taxpayers and using the national airspace and airwaves, must not be used against public interest, benefit and purposes. The petitioner stated that the failure of the Respondents to refrain from telecasting partisan political opinion and statements of the ruling party and its allies is against the letters and spirit of Articles 11, 19(1), 20(2) and 21 of the Constitution. He pointed out that the public media makes a significant contribution to "freedom of speech and expression" guaranteed by Article 39(2)(a) of the Constitution by providing genuine and impartial information and facts through allowing equal representation of those concerned to promote the "fairness doctrine" for the effective operation of the democratic process which the Respondents have failed to ensure and guarantee. The Court issued a Rule Nisi upon the Secretary, Ministry of Information; the Chairman, National Broadcasting Authority and the Director General, Bangladesh Television to show cause as to "why the telecasting of the political opinion through Bangladesh Television should not be declared contrary to the Policy on Programme of Bangladesh Television and Radio Bangladesh and be not declared incompatible and inconsistent to the constitutional provisions against public interest ...". The matter is pending for hearing. 6. Sharif Nurul Ambia v. Bangladesh & others Writ Petition No. 937/ 1995 (Unlawful Construction) The Petition was filed with legal assistance from Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) by Mr. Sharif Nurul Ambia, Joint General Secretary of Jatiya Samajtantric Dal (JSD). The Petition was moved by the Secretary General of BELA, Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque submitting that the DCC has undertaken the construction of the multi-storied building at the site earmarked for public car park in the RAJUK Master Plan unlawfully and without the latter's approval and hence liable to be demolished. It was further submitted that the construction was continuing defying DoE's finding that the said building would create a disruption to the environment of the area and the neighbourhood depriving them the right to life, body and healthy environment against hazardous pollution and obstruction to air and light as being endangered by the unauthorised construction by the Respondents. Upon hearing the petitioner, the Court stayed the said construction till disposal of suit. The rule was ultimately disposed of against which an appeal is pending before the Appellate Division. 7. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh & others Writ Petition No. 92/1996 (Radiated Milk) This petition was filed by Dr. Farooque as a potential consumer seeking redress against the failure of the authorities in taking effective and efficacious measures in dealing with the consignment of 125 metric tons Skimmed Milk Powder which was imported to Bangladesh and was found by the Atomic Energy Commission to be containing high concentration of radioactivity. It was argued that the consumers must be protected against all unscrupulous activities aiming to release the said consignment of radiated milk to give meaning to the Constitutional right to life. The Judgement addressed some vital issues for the first time. While the authorities were directed to adopt necessary measures to ensure proper testing of milk, the scope of constitutional right to life
5

was given a broader meaning. Right to environment was expressly recognised as being included in right to life. 8. Master Issa N. Farooque & Others v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No.278 of 1996 (Use of Children as Camel Jockey) Three Children filed a Writ Petition before the High Court Division of the Supreme Court against Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, the Secretary, Ministry of Social Welfare and the Secretary, Ministry of Women and Children Affairs questioning the failure of the Government to prevent camel race using Bangladeshi children as jockeys in United Arab Emirates. It was submitted that the Petitioners being minors were expressing their grievances and those of their generation yet unborn for judicial redress from the adult generation. The Petition pointed out that since 1989 there have been too many reports in the national and international media that children and minors of our country were being smuggled out of Bangladesh illegally to some gulf countries specially the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for engaging them as jockeys for camel race which continues for weeks and long distances with the technique of using the panicking screams of the children as the scary force that makes the camels run faster. Many children died during such races and in captivity. These children are kept mal-nourished to ensure their under weight. This inhuman sport and facts are the end results of a chain of heinous criminal activity and are shocking for the nation and is especially frightening to the children of our country. It was mentioned that the children of Bangladesh have become the subject of the sports of the rich in violation of their fundamental rights as citizens of Bangladesh. The law and the Constitution have failed to protect them and to prevent recurrence of such horror. Once some of these kidnapped, abducted and trafficked children have been located in the UAE no effective step has been taken by the authorities including the Foreign Service officials in Bangladesh diplomatic missions abroad having extravagant life at the expense of tax-payers money. A number of international media including the BBC telecasted horrifying visual reports on the Bangladeshi children presenting dreadful scenario, which psychologically affects the children. Yet no satisfactory evidence exists to suggest that these children have been brought back or that no children were being smuggled out to UAE for the said purpose although there are penal laws both national and international. Rather in recent newspaper reports it has been stated that a week long dreadful camel race using the Bangladeshi children were held in UAE from 31 December, 1995, titled as Grand Zayed Race which has further shocked the common people specially the younger generation. It was further submitted that the alleged incidents were threat to the children of Bangladesh and are clear manifestation of inefficiency of government in discharging statutory duties and obligations under various laws of the country and the Constitution of Bangladesh and also the Convention on the Rights of the Child ratified by Bangladesh on 3 August 1990. But the inaction of the authorities made the future generation panic-ridden, unsafe, vulnerable and commodities for sports of the rich nations. Hence, the petitioners have the right to ask for intergenerational justice, responsibility and equity. Upon hearing the matter the High Court Division directed the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs to submit a Report on kidnapping, abduction and trafficking of Bangladeshi children outside Bangladesh especially regarding their engagement in the Middle East countries as camel jockeys contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child as has been alleged in the writ petition and also asked for measures taken by the Government to ensure the safety of the children of Bangladesh. The Court heard and considered the Report that Dr. Farooque alleged to be totally vague and incomplete and an admission of their failure. On hearing the matter the learned Court asked the Respondents to show cause, why they should not be directed to perform their respective and collective duties in preventing the kidnapping, abduction and
6

trafficking of Bangladeshi children outside Bangladesh specially to engage them in the United Arab Emirates as camel jockeys. The show cause also alleged that such events were contrary to the provisions of law, the Constitution and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1990, for ensuring safe and protected conditions necessary for the children to live and grow up in Bangladesh. It further stated that why the Respondents should not be directed to take all necessary measures to repatriate all Bangladeshi children engaged as camel jockeys in the United Arab Emirates to Bangladesh and rehabilitate them with their parents and/or guardians. It is worth mentioning that following severe protest from the global community, the Government in UAE in 1993 banned the use of children under 14 or less than 45 kg as camel jockey. The news upto 2002 suggest that the Government of UAE has failed to enforce the ban. 9. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh and others Civil Appeal No. 24/1995 (Case on Standing) This Appeal arose from the judgement of the High Court Division dismissing a writ stating that BELA had no right to sue on behalf of the people of Tangail where the Flood Action Plan-20 was being implemented. On Appeal, the Appellate Division granted standing to BELA on 25th July 1996. The main thrust of the appeal was to get a judicial verdict as to whether a person or group of persons could be aggrieved in ways beyond the strict traditional concept, which are now emerging in many legal systems, like suits by evidently public-spirited persons or bodies having proven dedication. The appeal being allowed is a landmark decision in addressing the Constitutional knot and riddle that have been prevailing on the threshold question as to who is an "aggrieved person for last twenty four years history of our constitution. 10. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh & others (Writ Petition No.998/94) Sekandar Ali Mondol v. Bangladesh and others (Writ Petition No.1576/1994) (Challenging Flood Action Plan-20) In 1994, a Petition was filed by BELA challenging the implementation of Flood Action Plan-20 in Tangail. The Petition, first rejected by Court on the ground of Standing of the Petitioner was subsequently sent for hearing on merit to the High Court after the Appellate Division granted standing (Bangladesh Legal Decisions, (BLD) 1997 Appellate Division (AD), pg.1). In the petition, the authorities were accused of violating a number of laws that provide for compensating affected people for all sorts of loss and protecting the national heritage. The Court delivered Judgment on 28 August 97 and observed that ... in implementing the project the respondents cannot with impunity violate the provisions of law. We are of the view that the FAP-20 project work should be executed in complying with the requirements of law. 11. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh & others Writ Petition No. 867/97 (Contaminated Drink) The petitioner Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque, Secretary General of BELA, bought a 1000 ml bottle of soft drink brand name PEPSI produced by the Bangladesh Beverage Industries Limited for consumption from a shop in Dhanmondi. After going back home while he was about to open the said bottle he found that the liquid in it contained various foreign materials and substances including dead insects, sediments etc. He, therefore, without opening the bottle went to various statutory bodies and got the bottle physically examined and the fact was admitted and recorded by everyone including BSTI and Institute of Public Health. The petition is filed and moved alleging that the presence of such materials and substances were the result of utter failure and negligence in maintaining the acceptable quality,
7

preventing adulteration, in performing statutory duties, and a detrimental act to human and public health under various laws of the country and the Constitution of Bangladesh. It is also stated that although the authorities were informed including the Respondents, no satisfactory step was taken to protect the right of the petitioner and the public health and interest at large. The right to life of the people was endangered by such actions and inactions of the Respondents. The acts and omissions that had led to such contamination and the presence of foreign substances and materials were also criminal offence under various penal laws, stated Dr. Farooque. After hearing the matter the High Court Division issued show cause notice on the Ministry, BSTI and the Institute of Public Health for their failure to take appropriate action against the Pepsi Cola manufacturer. The Court also asked the Bangladesh Beverage Industries Ltd to show cause why its license to manufacture Pepsi Cola should not be cancelled. The Matter is now pending before the Court. Subsequently, the Petitioner also lodged a criminal case against the Bangladesh Beverage Industries Ltd. since such contamination and adulteration were crime. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court also issued summons upon judicial enquiry and the criminal case was also pending. 12. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh & others Writ Petition No. 948/1997 (Uttara Lake Fill-up) A division Bench of the High Court Division issued an injunction of the filling up of Uttara Lake for housing purposes. The injunction was issued on an application of Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque, Secretary General, BELA upon the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works, Chairman, Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakhya (RAJUK) and DG, DoE. The petition was filed on an appeal from the local residents of Uttara, who accused RAJUK of creating an environmental hazard in the area by filling up part of the lake in violation of the original Master Plan of Uttara. The injunction would remain effective till disposal of the case. Upon final hearing of the petition the Honble Court on presided over Mr. Justice Md. Imman Ali and Mr. Justice Shamin Hasnain on 17 February, 2004 discharged the rule without any order as to cost. After gating aforesaid judgement BELA filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition 84 of 2004 and Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal 564 of 2004 before the appellate division upon hearing the petitioner the Honble Appellate Division granted prayer Leave. Pending hearing of the rule, parties are directed to maintain status quo. 13. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh & others Writ Petition No. 1252/1997 (Unregulated Operation of Brick Field) The indiscriminate operation of 19 brickfields in Senbag of Noakhali District in violation of applicable legal provisions and circular was brought to the notice of the High Court through the above petition. The petition filed by BELA on behalf of a local group called Senbag Thana Pollution Free Environment Committee accused the local administration for being indifferent towards the environmental havoc created by the brick furnaces. The management of the brickfields were not conducting their business with due regard to the legal provisions mandating in favour of sound environment and health state. Moreover, leasing agricultural land to brick fields in violation of existing land management laws and manual resulted in a tremendous pressure on the available stock of agriculture land, as after a given period the lands do not remain fit for agricultural purposes. Upon hearing the petitioner BELA, the Court issued a Rule Nisi calling upon Secretary, Ministry of Land, Deputy Commissioner, Noakhali and DG, DoE to show cause as to why the issuance and
8

renewal of licences permitting operations of 19 brick manufacturing kilns in the Senbag Thana under Noakhali District causing threat to the natural environment and health of the neighbouring residents of the area should not be declared to have been done without any lawful authority and be directed to implement the circular. The matter is now pending for hearing. 14. Mr. Iqbal Hossain v. Bangladesh & others Writ Petition No. 2541/1997 (Participation by the Blinds in BCS) The above petition was filed against the Secretaries, Ministries of Establishment and Social Welfare, Chairman and Director of Bangladesh Public Service Commission (BPSC) for cancellation of admit card and restraining the petitioner from sitting in the Preliminary Examination of the 18 th Bangladesh Civil Service (BCS) on the ground of disability due to blindness. Dr. Farooque, on behalf of the petitioner, moved the case before the High Court Pro Bono and submitted that the cancellation order was contrary to the constitutional provision guaranteeing equality, law and National Policy on Matters Relating to the Handicapped. After hearing the matter the Court issued a Rule Nisi upon the respondents. The matter is pending for hearing. 15. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh & others Writ Petition No. 6020/1997 (Hill Cutting Case) The indiscriminate, unlawful and unauthorized cutting and raising of hills within the Chittagong City Corporation and its adjoining areas was brought to judicial notice by BELA through the above petition. The Court on hearing the petitioner, Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque, directed the DG, DoE to submit a report on alleged illegal and indiscriminate cutting of hills, contributing to ecological imbalance and degradation of environment of the city. The Court further ordered that the report should contain the measures taken by the Government to prevent such illegal activities. Subsequent application has been filed under the petition. The matter is now pending for hearing. 16. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh & others Writ Petition No. 6105/1997 (Gas Explosion at Magurchara) The above petition was against the Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, Chairman, Bangladesh Oil, Gas and Mineral Development Corporation (PETROBANGLA), DG, DoE and Occidental of Bangladesh Limited for their negligence in preventing the fire that engulfed the Magurchhara Gas Field and the adjoining areas, while the Occidental of Bangladesh Ltd., a reputed foreign oil company, was carrying on with their regular excavation. The statutory authorities permitted such risky operation without proper EIA, as required by the ECA. BELA, the petitioner, also blamed the respondents for failing to combat the after effects of the fire, as reports suggest that it took quite a long time before normal life was restored in the affected areas. A show cause notice was issued upon the respondents to clarify their own position. With the filing of subsequent petition the petition is pending for hearing.

17. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh & others Writ Petition No. 7422/1997 (Gulshan Lake Fill-up) A division bench of the High Court Division issued a Rule in a petition filed in 1997 against implementation of an agreement called the Banani, Gulshan, Baridhara Lake Development Project Agreement signed between RAJUK and Indus Valley Investment Pvt. Ltd. to undertake a huge construction in the said areas, defying and violating the constitutional and legal requirements. The Court directed them to show cause as to why the agreement and the subsequent agreements to lease out a total area of 220 acres of public land should not be declared to have been entered/undertaken without lawful authority in violation of law and the constitution against public interest and as such be declared null and void and of no legal effect. The Government subsequently cancelled the project. 18. Nijera Kori v. Bangladesh & others Writ Petition No. 1162/1998 (Allotment of Land for Shrimp Cultivation) The petition was filed against allotment of Government owned Khas Land to Shrimp Cultivators in Sudharam, P.S. of Noakhali District in contravention of the provision of the Land Management Manual, 1991 and Articles 15, 19, 31 and 32 of the Constitution depriving thereby the landless people. The Court on two occasions restrained the respondents from disturbing the peaceful possession of the landless families. The matter is now pending for hearing.

19. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 2482/1999 (Gulshan Lake) The unlawful filling up of Gulshan, Banani, Baridhara Lake for creating housing plots was challenged by another writ petition No. 2482 of 1998 filed by BELA. Following the Petition a division bench of the High Court directed RAJUK to take measures for suspending all construction and/ or filling up of the water body and lakeside areas of Gulshan, Banani and Baridhara Model Towns in specific areas. The Court also issued a rule nisi upon the Ministry of Works and RAJUK to show cause as to why the allotment of on the lake water lake-side area in Gulshan, Banani, Baridhara Town shall not be declared to have been undertaken in violation of the Town Improvement Act, 1953, against public interest and why they should not be directed to restore public property in a manner best suited to public interest. The Court further directed RAJUK to prepare and submit before it a detailed and complete statement regarding allotment of plots and filling up of the lake water and/or lakeside area in violation of the approved Master and Lay Out plan rendering thereby water bodies of the Lake into private properties along with list of names and address of persons in whose favor such allotment have been made and those encroachment upon the lake water and or lakeside. The matter is pending for hearing. 20. Biplob Kumar Roy v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 1840 of 1999 (Nabaganga River) A Rule Nisi was issued upon the Deputy Commissioner, Narail District for unlawfully leasing out part of the River Nabogonga having its flow through Rajpur to Jaipur Ghat. The rule came as a result of the Petition No. 1840 of 1999 filed by BELA and one member of the local fisherman community,
10

alleged that such leasing violated the notification of the Ministry of Land dated 5 September 95 prohibiting leasing of open fisheries for protecting the rights of the poor fishermen community and ensuring their livelihood. The rule required to show cause as to why the leasing out of the part of the river Naboganga shall not be declared to have been made in defiance of legal and constitutional obligations and against public interest, is of no legal effect and without any lawful authority. The authority ultimately cancelled the lease. 21. Bangladesh Environment Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 4098/1999 (Buriganga Encroachment) A direction was issued upon the Secretaries, Ministry of Land, Home Affairs, Water Resources; Chairmen, Bangladesh Water Development Board and Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Authority and the Deputy Commissioners of Dhaka and Narayanganj requiring them to prepare and submit a report in the form of an action plan setting out a definite time frame and stating the measure to be undertaken for recovering the public property of the river Buriganga and evict the illegal encroachers as identified by a report of the Deputy Commission of Dhaka dated 5 February, 1998. The direction was issued by a division bench of the High Court following a Writ Petition No. 4098 of 1999 filed by BELA and required the report to be submitted within two months. The Honble Court also issued a Rule Nisi upon the above state parties also including the Secretary, Ministry of Environment to show cause as to why they should not be directed to perform their legal duties in taking immediate appropriate measures for removing the illegal encroachment over the river Buriganga and protecting its environment and restoring the same in a manner best suited in the interest of the public. In the above Writ Petition the Honble Court upon hearing the Petitioner was pleased to pass an Order on 18 January 2000 directing to take immediate appropriate measures for removing the illegal encroachment over the river Buriganga for recovering the public property and protecting its environment. After the said Order the Honorable Court issued directions on 23 April, 19 July and 20 August 2000 virtually extending time for compliance with the Order dated 18 January 2000. Despite such repeated Orders from the Honble Court and service of the notices the Respondent failed to comply with the direction of Honble Court. For the non compliance of the Court directions by the Respondents, BELA filed a Contempt Petition No. 33 arising out of Writ Petition No. 4098 of 1999 on 8th April, 2001. The matter is now pending for hearing. 22. Khushi Kabir v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 3091 of 2000 (Illegal Shrimp Cultivation) A Division Bench of the High Court Division comprising Mr. Justice Mohammad Gholam Rabbani and Justice Begum Nazmun Ara Sultana has issued a Rule Nisi on 6 June, 2000 upon the Secretary and Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, Director General, Fisheries Directorate, District Commissioner, Khulna, District Fisheries Officer, Khulna to show cause as to why the impugned order for utilizing the land of Polder 22 for shrimp cultivation under Deluti Union, Paikgachha P.S. of Khulna district dated 9 May, 2000 shall not be declared to have been issued without lawful authority and have no effect as being ultra virus and in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under articles 27, 31 and 42 of the Constitution. The Honble Court also stayed the operational effect of the above-mentioned letter issued by the Respondent No. 2 and of any steps taken for shrimp cultivation pursuant to the impugned letter issued from the same Respondent. The petitioners were aggrieved by the order issued by the Respondent No. 2 vide letter bearing No. Motsho-2 (Niti) 10/99/52 that purported to direct that Polder No. 22 under Deluti Union of Paikgacha
11

Thana be earmarked for shrimp cultivation upon the application submitted by Advocate Sheikh Mohammad Nurul Hoq, MP. The petition alleged that if the area under Polder 22 is allowed for shrimp 23. Bangladesh Environment Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Contempt Petition No. 33 of 2001 (Arising out of Writ Petition No. 4098 of 1999) (Buriganga Encroachment) One contempt petition has been filed before the Hon'ble High Court Division to wilful disregard to the order of the High Court Division relating to the Buriganga Encroachment in this petition the division bench calling upon the respondents contemnors to show cause as to why they should not be prosecuted for committing contempt of court in my some meeting the report in compliance to the order dated 18 January 2000, 23 April, 2000 and 19 July, 2000 passed in writ petition No. 4098 of 1999 and take appropriate action to punish the respondent contemnors according to law and / or such other or further order passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper. The matter is pending for hearing. 24. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 1691 of 2001 (FAP Case) A division bench of the High Court comprising Mr. Justice Kazi AT Monwar uddin and Mr. Justice Mozammul Hossain has issued a Rule Nisi upon the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources and Land; Chairman, BWDB; Director General, WARPO; Deputy Commissioner, Tangail and Executive Engineer, BWDB to show cause as to why they should not be directed to assess the compensation claims of the Project Affected People in compliance with the provisions and procedures of the Acquisition and Requisition of the Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982; section 28, 30 and 31 of The Embankment and Drainage Act, 1952 (East Bengal Act I of 1953); Article 11(1)(c) of Bangladesh Water and Power Development Boards Order, 1972 (Presidents Order No. 59 of 1972) and the judicial pronouncement dated 28 August, 1997 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 988 and 1576 of 1994 by this Honble Court. This matter is pending for hearing. 25. Md. Shahjahan Mondol and others v. Executive Engineer CPP Division Water Development Board Tangail and others Civil Revision no. 2873 of 2001 (FAP) A single bench presiding by Mr. Justice Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah the court issued rule calling upon their opposite parties to show cause as to why the order dated 25.2.2001 passed by the SubOrdinate Judge Arthorin Adalat Tangail in miscellaneous appeal no. 78 of 1999 setting aside the order maintaining a status quo dated 4-11-99 passed by the Senior Assistant Judge, Tangail in Title Suit No. 113 of 1999 should not be set aside and or passed such other or further order or orders as to this court may seem fit and proper. Pending hearing of the rule Parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of possession of the suit property. The matter is now pending for hearing. 26. Quazi Faruque, Secretary General CAB v. Ministry of Shipping and others Writ Petition No.631of 2001 (Launch Casualty) A division bench of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh on 22 February, 2001, directed the responsible authorities to immediately ensure that all launches carrying
12

passengers be equipped with adequate number of lifesaving buoy and other life saving apparatus before voyage as required by law and also to take all necessary measures to prevent overloading of extra passengers during the Eid-ul-Azha. The Court comprising Mr. Justice K M Hasan and Mr. Justice A F M Mesbah Uddin further directed the Secretaries, Ministries of Shipping and Home Affairs; BIWTA, BIWTC, Director General, Director (Port and Transportation) and the Chief Inspector of the Department of Shipping, and the Chairman, Launch Owners Association to arrange for wider dissemination of the provisions of the Inland Shipping Ordinance, 1976 relating passenger safety through public media and ensure display and dissemination of such legal provisions at the launches and launch terminal during the Eid-ul-Azha. The directions of the Court came in a Writ Petition filed by Quazi Faruque, Secretary General of Consumers Association of Bangladesh (CAB) with legal assistance from BELA. In view of the submission of the Petitioner to implement the recommendations of the Committees for ensuring safety for the launch passengers, the Court further issued a Rule Nisi upon the respondents to show cause within 4 weeks from the date of the Order as to why they shall not be directed to ensure compliance of law and orders relating navigational safety and also why they shall not be directed to take immediate step for the implementation of recommendations of the Committees. The matter is now pending for hearing. 27. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh & others Writ Petition 3336 of 2002 (Filling up of Ashulia Flood Flow Zone) A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Mr. Justice S.A.N Mominur Rahman and Mr. Justice Arayesuddin has directed to immediately stop the unlawful earth filling of the Ashulia flood flow zone by Jamuna Builders Ltd. Following a writ petition filed by BELA, the Honble High Court has given the direction on 13th of July, 2002. In the petition filed by BELA relief was sought against 8 respondents including Secretaries, Ministry of Housing and Public Works, Ministry of Land, Ministry of Environment and Forest; Chairmen, RAJUK and BWDB; Director General, Department of Environment; Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka; and Managing Director of Jamuna Group Ltd. The BELA petition alleged that the earth filling by the Jamuna Builders Ltd. and other developers in Ashulia flood flow zone for housing purposes has no approval from the RAJUK. The filling up of the flood flow zone and the branches of the Turag River flowing thereon was essentially changing the nature, character and utility of the natural water body. Such filling up was in gross violation of the Master Plan of the City prepared by RAJUK and also the 2000 Act that aims to protect the open spaces including the flood flow zones from being filled up. The 2000 Act strictly prohibits activities that would change the nature of the water bodies including flood flow zones without prior approval from the government. The Master Plan prepared by RAJUK discourages all development in main flood flow areas to enable free flow of flood water. The only activities allowed therein under the Master Plan are agriculture, dry season recreation and ferry terminals. The violation of the Act of 2000 is punishable with imprisonment of 5 years and fine upto Taka 50 thousand. In defiance of all these legal requirement, the Jamuna Builders Ltd. proposed to develop housing over an area of 2276.19 bigha encroaching upon 5000 acre flood flow zone and also the branches of Turag that the government, as claimed by BELA failed to prevent effectively.

13

Upon hearing the petition, the Honble Court directed the respondents to show cause as to why the unlawful filling up of Ashulia flood flow zone and branches of the Turag River by the Jamuna Builders Ltd. should not be declared illegal under Act XXXVI of 2000, Town Improvement Act, 1953 and the Environment Conservation Act, 1995. The Court has further directed to immediately stop all kinds of earth filling in the Ashulia flood flow zone. The matter is now pending for hearing. 28. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 4685 of 2002 (Protection of Fuldi River from Unlawful Leasing) In ensuring sustainable management of public properties BELA has filed this Writ Petition before the Honble High Court Division of the Supreme Court on 9March, 2002. A large portion of the river Fuldi of village Sonar Kandi under Gazaria police station of Munshigonj District was unlawfully leased for a period of 99 years. The villagers have been using the said river in their agricultural activities including irrigation and drainage. Peasants of nearby villages have been earning their livelihood by carrying out various income generating activities in and around the river that includes boat ferry service, traditional fishing, daily convenient usage, water transport and other usual utilisation like many other rivers of the country. The petitioners claim that the respondents have been acting collusively with mala fide abuse of power with intention to deprive the petitioners and the general public of the locality from their livelihood and environmental protection as the Scheduled Land forms part of natural water flow of the rive Fuldi. The Court issued a Rule Nisi calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the impugned settlement of the disputed scheduled land being against public interest and violative of the petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 27 and 31 of the Constitution should not be declared to have been done without lawful authority and is of no legal effect .The Court also stayed the operation of the impugned lease deeds for a period of 3 months from date. The rule was made returnable within 4 weeks from date. The respondents were Secretary, Ministry of Land; Divisional Commissioner, Dhaka Division; Chairman, Bangladesh Water Development Board; Director General, Department of Environment; Deputy Commissioner, Munshigonj, Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Munshigonj; the Assistant Commissioner (Land), Munshigonj; Amina Khatun, Ameenuddin & Lal Banu. The matter is now pending for hearing. 29. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 1430 of 2003 (Tannery case) To relocate Tannery Units from Hazaribagh the High court has issued a Rule Nisi on 3 March , 2003.A division bench of the court comprising of Mr. justice M.A Aziz and Mr. Justice Nazrul Islam Chowdhury has called upon the seven government agencies and two tannery associations as respondents namely; the secretaries of the Ministries of Industries and Commerce, Environment and Forest, the Director General and the Director of DoE ,member of Planning Commission ,Chairmen of RAJUK ,BSCIC and Tanners Association and BFLLFEA .They were asked to show cause why they should not be directed to relocate within 18 months from date the tannery units from Hazaribagh area of the city to suitable location as contemplated in the Master Plan prepared under the Town improvement Act 1953 and ensure that adequate pollution fighting devices are developed in the new location /site as required under the Environment Conservation Act, 1995 and the Factories Act, 1965 and the rules made there under.
14

Pending hearing of the Rule, the respondents are also directed to apprise the Court regarding the process of relocation of Tannery Units and submit a report in this regard to the Court within 6 months from date. The rule is made returnable within 4 weeks. The matter is now pending for hearing. 30. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 2911 of 2003 (Ship Breaking to be Regulated by Law) Most recently BELA has also filed a petition on the 19th of April, 2003 before the Honble High Court division to check pollution of coastal / marine ecosystem caused by the disposal of hazardous ship wastes as taking place in the ship breaking operation in Sitakunda of Chittagong. Seeking relief against violation of legal provisions on environment and labour protection, the petition has been filed, amongst others, the Secretaries, Ministry of Shipping, Industries and Commerce, Labour and Employment, Environment and Forest. The Director General, Department of Environment, Fire Service and Civil Defence, Chief Inspector of Factories and Establishments, Department of Explosives, Collector of Customs, Chittagong, Mercantile Marine Department and the President of Bangladesh Ship Breakers Association are amongst the other respondents. According to the petitioners; the available records suggest that no ship-breaking agencies have environmental clearance despite the clear requirement to have such clearance as a hazardous industry/factory. Moreover, the persistent violation of labour related laws in the ship breaking agencies have resulted in few major explosions in the past three years. Upon hearing the petitioner, the Division Bench of the High Court Division comprising Mr. Justice M. M. Ruhul Amin and Mr. Justice Mohammad Bazlur Rahman has issued a Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause why they should not be directed to ensure that ship breaking operation is undertaken only after obtaining certificate of environmental clearance as required under section 12 of the Environment Conservation Act, 1995 and on adopting detailed and appropriate safety and labour welfare measures as required under the Factories Act, 1965. The Court has also asked the respondents to show cause as to why ship breaking shall not be undertaken only after obtaining gas free certificate from the custom Department to prevent dangerous explosion and protect the workers/labourers from the risk of death, grievous heart and injuries. In this regard the respondents would also show cause why import of ship for breaking purposes shall not be regulated in line with the requirements of the Basel Convention, 1989. The Rule is made returnable within 4 weeks. The matter is now pending for hearing. 31. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 3475 of 2003 (Protection and Maintenance of Parks and Playgrounds of Dhaka) A petition was moved on 11 May, 2003 before the High Court Division by BELA seeking proper maintenance and protection of 10 playgrounds and 61 parks of the City. This petition was filed against the Mayor, Dhaka City Corporation (DCC), Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD) and Chairman, RAJUK the petitioner prayed for direction to (i) ensure proper maintenance and protection of open spaces of the City as required under the Town Improvement Act, 1953, the Dhaka City Corporation Ordinance, 1983 and the Open Space Protection Act, 2000, (ii) complete the process of demarcation of all open spaces, (iii) develop, time bound plan for development and maintenance of the open spaces as required under the Town Improvement Act, 1953 and the Dhaka City Corporation Ordinance, 1983, and (iv) implement the said plan within such time as may be fixed by the Court.
15

Upon hearing the petitioner, the Division Bench of the High Court Division comprising Mr. Justice Md. Tafazzal Islam and Mr. Justice A. F. M. Abdur Rahman has issued a Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause why they should not be directed to ensure proper maintenance and protection of open spaces of the city as a Annexure- C and C-1 (10 playgrounds and 61 parks of the City) as required under the Town Improvement Act, 1953, the Dhaka City Corporation Ordinance, 1983 and the Open Space Protection Act, 2000.and or pass such other or further order or orders as to this court seem fit and proper. Pending hearing of the rule the Court also directed to (i) complete within six months from the date of the order the process of demarcation of all open spaces as of annexure C and C-1 protect these as envisaged under the open space protection Act, 2000 (ii) develop a time bound plan for development and maintenance of the open spaces as required the Town Improvement Act 1953 and the Dhaka City Corporation Ordinance 1983 and (iii) implement the said plan within such time as may be fixed by this Court and the respondents Nos. 2 and 5 are also directed to submit periodic reports of compliance time bound directors of this court and or require any further person, body or authority to monitor such progress and report in a manner to be determined by this Court. The Rule has been made returnable within 3 weeks from date. The matter is now pending for hearing. 32. Fishery related Cases As a partner of the Community based Fishery Management Programme (CBFM-phase II), BELA is assisting the other partner NGOs/department of fisheries/Local Management Committees of CBFM to defend cases to protect the rights of the beneficiary fishermen. Ten such cases are pending before the sub ordinate courts of Rangpur, Kishoregonj, BBaria and Narail districts. The suits relate to leasing out of public fisheries to poor fishermen for conservation-oriented management (known as biological management) as opposed to revenue management in favour of individual lease-holder. The suit numbers are: a. Title Suit No. 24/2002 b. Appeal No. 30 of 1999 and Mis. case No. 19 of 2002 c. Complainant Register Case No. 02 of 2003 d. Title Appeal No. 142 of 2000 e. Title Suit No. 161 of 2002 f. Other Suit No. 22 of 2003 g. Others Suit No. 27 of 2003 h. Others Appeal No. 23 of 2002 i. Title Suit No. 84 of 2001 j. Title suit no. 66 of 2002. In these cases BELA is representing the interest of the community in supporting the case of defendant who are partner NGOs of CBFM. Out of these cases, BELA has already won two while the rest are pending. 33. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Ministry of Land and others Writ Petition No 4286 of 2003 (Protection and Conservation of Sonadia Island) A petition (Writ Petition no. 4286 of 2003) was moved by BELA on 6 July, 2003 before the High Court Division seeking special protective measures to protect and conserve the 4916 hectors of Sonadia Island as an Ecologically Critical Area (ECA). The petition for the first time has relied on the principle of polluters pay.
16

The petition of BELA made the Secretaries, Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF) and Ministry of Land, the Chief Conservator of Forest, the Deputy Commissioner, Coxs Bazar, the Divisional Forest Officer, Coxs Bazar respondents. The petition stated that the declaration of the total of 4916 hector of land of the Sonadia Island as ecologically critical area (ECA) establishes the facts that the mangrove forest of the said land area has special ecological significance in protecting and preserving the char land of Sonadia Island from erosion and also to save the people living nearby from being inundated and swept by the tidal bore during natural disaster. The declaration was withdrawn by the Ministry of Environment and Forest on the erroneous ground that the said forest was once declared reserve and hence following specific management guidelines as developed by the Department of Forest. BELAs investigation revealed that the forest was never declared reserve and hence withdrawal of its status as ECA has virtually left it unprotected. Upon hearing the petitioner, the Division Bench of the High Court Division comprising Mr. Justice ABM Khairul Haque and Mr. Justice Syed Shahidur Rahman issued a Rule Nisi calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why they should not be directed to undertake special protective measures as required under Section 5 of the Environment Conservation Act, 1995 to protect and conserve the 4916 hectors of Sonadia Island as an Ecologically Critical Area as declared vide Gazette notification dated 19 April, 1999 under section 5 of the Environment Conservation Act, 1995. Further granting of lease of or otherwise tampering with the 4,916 hectors of the forest land of Sonadia Island has also been stayed by the Court. The Respondents have been directed to undertake investigation to identify and measure the areas within the 4,916 hectors of the Sonadia Island where shrimp cultivation/clearing of forest is taking place or has taken place, list those who are involved in such cultivation/clearing and the enabling arrangements, assess in monetary terms the loss of forest resources for such individual shrimp cultivation/clearing of forest and submit a report on the same within two months before this Court. The Rule has been made returnable within 4 weeks. The matter is now pending for hearing.

34. Nijera Kori v. Bangladesh & others Writ Petition no. 7248 of 2003 (Shrimp Cultivation) The petition was filed against allotment of Government owned Khas Land to Shrimp Cultivators at Noakali District in contravention of the provision of the Land Management Manual, 1990 and Articles 15, 19, 31 and 32 of the Constitution depriving thereby the landless people. The Court on 15 December 2003 directed not to disturb or harass the petitioners for a period of two weeks. Subsequently a division bench comprising Mr. Justice Shah Abu Naeem Mominur Rahman and Mr. Justice Abdus Salam Mamun granted status co. Meanwhile the learned Assistant Attorney General appearing in this application submitted that the Government has taken a decision not a evict the landless persons belonging to the writ petitioner samity till their rehabilitation and further under taken that he will inform the government about order passed by this court un this writ petition. In view of the decision of the Government the learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that she will not press this application at this stage since the Government has decided not to evict the landless persons from the case land till their rehabilitation.
17

Considering statements made in the application and the submissions made by the learned Assistant Attorney General the learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner to the effect that the Government has taken decision not to evict the members of the writ petitioner i.e the land less persons now occupying the case land till their rehabilitation in due course and since the learned Assistant Attorney General has under taken to that effect, let the writ application be disposed of without any order as to costs. The directions of the Court came in a Writ Petition filed by Nijera Kori with legal assistance from Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA). 35. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh & others Writ Petition no. 2224 of 2004 (Protection and Conservation of Sunderbans) A petition (Writ Petition no. 2224 of 2004) was moved on 2 May 2004 before the High Court Division by BELA seeking special protective measures to protect and conserve the 9285.15 sq kilometers of Sunderbans as an Ecologically Critical Area (ECA). In the petition filed by BELA relief was sought against the Secretaries, Ministry of Land, Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF), Department of Environment (DoE), Chief Conservator of Forest, the Divisional Forest officer, Bagerhat, Divisional commissioner, Khulna, the Deputy Commissioner, Bagerhat, the Upazila Nirbahi officer, Bagerhat. The petition stated that the land area in question is being grabbed by the Ministry of Land for unlawfully implementing its project despite severe protests even from the Forest Department. It was also stated in the petition that the government vide a gazette notification dated 30 August, 1999 has declared 10 (ten) kilometres area around the reserved forest of Sunderbans as Ecologically Critical Area (ECA) and has prohibited in that area such activities that can threaten the forest and habitat of wild animals. The plan of the Ministry of Land to implement its project is in fact within the limits of the ECA. Upon hearing the petitioner, the Division Bench of the High Court Division comprising Mr. Justice Shah Abu Naim Mominur Rahman and Mr. Justice Jubayer Rahaman Chowdhury has issued a Rule Nisi calling upon the government to show cause as to why the setting up and implementation of Adrasha Gram project should not be declared to have been undertaken without any legal effect. Pending hearing of the Rule the Court has also stayed implementation of the project and issued an injunction restraining the Secretary, Ministry of Land, Divisional Commissioner, DC and UNO of Bagerhat district from carrying out any activities towards settlement of any person in the ECA of the Sunderbans. The Rule has been made returnable within 8 weeks. 36. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) and Global Village, Rangamati v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 2459 of 2004 (Construction of a Community Center in the Sole Municipal Park of Rangamati) A petition (Writ Petition no. 2459 of 2004) was moved on 15 May 2004 before the High Court Division by BELA. Division bench of the High Court Division comprised of Justice Md. Abdul Matin and Mr. Justice Tarequel Hassan granteed status quo on construction of a community center in the sole Municipal Park of Rangamati. The order came following a Writ petition filed by BELA and Global Village of Rangamati. Established in 1985 at the reserve bazar in Rangamati, the Park comprising 2.5 acres remains the only recreation park for the children. The municipal authority decided to construct a community
18

center, pacca roar and bench of the west side of the park. The construction work planned to be carried out in two phases is being supported by the LGED and World Bank. For the purpose of establishing community center, many trees on the western side of the Park have already been chopped down. The 20 years older municipal park also has monuments of two famous persons. Protesting the decision of building community center in the Park the civil society of Rangamati arranged series of Demonstrations, human-chain and submitted memorandum to the concern authorities, but of no avail. But upon hearing the petitioner the Court issued Rule Nisi calling the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned construction project for construction of Community Center in place of Childrens Park casusing threat to the natural environment or the area and the open Space should not be declared to have been undertaken without lawfull authority and is of no legal effects and /or pass such other or further order or orders passed as to the Court may seem fit and proper. Pending hearing of the rule, parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the possession of the park till disposal of the rule. 37. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) and Thengamara Mohila Sabuj Sangha (TMSS) v. Bangladesh and others

Writ Petition No.

The High Court in August, 2004 issued a rule nisi on 4244/04 (Illegal Sand Extraction from River Korota) the Government and the concerned individuals to show cause why they should not be directed to prevent the illegal sand extraction from the river Korota of Mouzas Thengamara, Shakharia, Bonomalipara and the surrounding areas of Bogra. The rule nisi was issued on a writ petition filed by BELA and Thengaramara Mohila Sabuj Sangha (TMSS). The petitioners sought judicial intervention to prevent illegal sand extraction from the river Korotoa at the Thengamara, Shakharia and Bonomalipara Mouzas and the surrounding areas of Bogra and also to compensate the affected villagers. The Court further stayed illegal sand extraction for a period of six months. A division bench of HC comprising the Justice Mohammad Abdul Wahab Mia and Justice Zinat Ara issued the orders upon the secretaries, Ministries of Land, Environment & Forest, Water Resources, DG of Department of Environment (DoE), Deputy Director of DoE at Rajshahi and Deputy Commissioner of Bogra. 38. Nijera Kori and others v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 5194 of 2004 (Illegal Shrimp Cultivation and Settlement of Land in favour of Landless People) In a writ petition filed by Nijera Kori along with BELA, BLAST, Ain-o-Salish Kendro, ALRD and BSEHR, a division bench of the High Court comprising Justice Md. Abdul Whabab Mia and Justice Jinath Ara issued a Rule Nisi on 1 st September, 2004 calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why they should not be directed to protect the landless people living in he 11955.59 acres of char lands declared as shrimp mohal in Noakhali and compensate those landless people who have been affected by the unlawful harassment, intimidation and eviction of the land grabbers and so-called shrimp cultivators.

19

In the petition, the petitioner sought settlement of the land areas in favour of the landless people as per the provisions of the Land Management Manual, 1990 and also the shrimp mohal management guidelines that gives landless people priority in settlement of khas land. The Court further stayed the operation of the impugned government memo dated 6.5.2003 declaring 11, 955. 59 acres of char land as shrimp mohal in Noakhali that led to severe conflicts, unrest and disputes in the locality. The order of the court will protect 40, 000 landless people of at least 13, 000 families who, being victim of river erosion, are leaving in the khas char land of the government. The order was served upon the respondents of the case that include the Secretaries Ministry of Land, Ministry of Environment and Forest, and Ministry of Home Affairs; Inspector General of Police; the Divisional Commissioner, Chittagong; the Deputy Commissioners of Noakhali; the Assistant Commissioners (Land), Sadar Upzilla, Noakhali and the Assistant Commissioner (Land), Companigonj Upzilla, Noakhali. 39. BELA v. Bangladesh and others(metro makers/modhumoti) Writ Petition No.4604/04 In a historic judgment on 27 July, 2005, a division bench of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh comprising Mr. Justice MA Matin and Mr. Justice A F M Abdur Rahman declared the implementation of the Modhumoti Model Town (MMT) undertaken by the Metro Makers and Developers Ltd. as unauthorised, illegal and against public interest. The judgment came following a public interest litigation (4604 of 2004) filed by Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) that was exhaustively argued before the special bench that delivered the judgment. Together with the BELA petition, the Honble Court has rejected an earlier petition filed by the Metro makers. BELA first filed the petition on 14 August, 2004 challenging the legality of the Project that was filling up the sub-flood flow zone near Amin Bazar and was being implemented ignoring the mandate of RAJUK. On 15 August, 2004 a Division bench of the High Court comprising Mr. Justice Md. Abdul Wahab Miah and Justice Zinat Ara issued injunction for six months against Metro Makers Ltd. preventing them from further earth filling or undertaking any other activity for implementing the Project including advertisements to sell plots in Modhumoti Model Town. The said order further banned all advertisements for selling of plots of the so-called Modhumoti Model Town. Subsequently, the stay order was vacated by a division bench of the High Court comprising Mr. Justice Joynal Abedin and Mr. Justice Nirmalendu Dhar on 1 September, 2004 against which BELA preferred appeal. Although the vacation bench of the Appellate Division presided over by Mr. Justice Tafazzul Islam again granted stay in favour of BELA on 3 October, 2004, on regular appeal the Appellate Division referred the matter to the High Court Division for hearing on merit. The matter was finally disposed of today together with the earlier writ petition (5103 of 2003) filed by the Metro makers alleging that RAJUK through filing of police case was illegality obstructing its development activities. In that case Metro makers obtained stay in their favour and continued to implement the project on the claim that they had RAJUKs approval for the same. The permission letter they appended in their petition was challenged by BELA as forged and subsequently on scrutiny of the original files, the court today held that the letter was of course not a genuine one. The Honble Court, therefore, discharged the rule issued earlier that so long prevented RAJUK from obstructing earth filling by the Metro makers. In disposing of the BELAs case the Honble Court made the rule absolute in part. Considering the length of the judgment, the Honble Court only pronounced the operative part touched upon five major issues. Firstly the Court rejected the plea of the Modhumotis lawyers that BELA has no standing to file the case. The maintainability issue was also decided favourably.
20

On the issue of legality of the project the court categorically held that the project of Modhumoti Model Town being undertaken in violation of the Town Improvement Act and the Master Plan prepared thereunder, the Environment Conservation Act and the Act No. 36 of 2000 and without having obtained any permission from RAJUK, the same is unauthorised, illegal, without lawful authority and against public interest. The Court therefore, directed RAJUK to protect the sub flood flow zone of Savar Amin Bazar from illegal earth filling by the Metro makers and also directed Metro makers to refrain from undertaking any further earth filling in the said subflood flow zone. The Court, however, directed that since people have already purchased plots, the third party interest of the buyers shall not be affected by this order. On behalf of BELA, the petition was moved by Mr. Mahmudul Islam, Mr. A F Hassan Ariff, both former Attorney Generals and Dr. Kamal Hossain with assistance from S. Rizwana Hasan, Iqbal Kabir and Tanjibul Alam. On behalf of RAJUK and the government, the petition was moved by Mr. A J Mohammad Ali, Attorney General, Ms. Sigma Huda and Mr. Adilur Rahman Shubhro, deputy attorney general. On behalf of Metro Makers and the added respondents (buyers of plots), amongst others, Mr T H Khan, Mr Azmamul Hossain, Mr. Rokonuddin Mahmud, Mr. Abdul Matin Khasru, Mr. Mahbubey Alam, Ms. Tania Amir, Mr. Sirajul Haq appeared before the Court. The petition of BELA was fought against the indiscriminate and unregulated earth filling by the developers that is causing unbearable water logging in the City. 40. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) and others v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 6911 of 2005 (Gas Blow Out at Tengratila) In a writ petition filed by BELA with two other human rights NGOs namely Ain-o Shalish Kendra (ASK) and Odhikar, challenging the legality of the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) between BAPEX and NIKO, a vacation bench of the High Court comprising Mr. Justice M. A. Rashid and Mr. Justice Md. Fazlur Rahman had issued a Rule (show cause) on 12 September, 2005 on 9 responsible government agencies and NIKO. Upon hearing the petitioners, the Court issued Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the JVA dated 16 October, 2003 between BAPEX and NIKO should not be declared to have been made without lawful authority and why it should not be treated as illegal and a nullity in the eye of law for being volatile of the Bangladesh Petroleum Act, 1974 as well as the Environment Conservation Act, 1995 and having been procured through flawed process effected and induced by resorting to fraudulent and forged document by Niko. The respondents have also been directed to show cause as to why they should not be directed to take effective legal measures to protect the public property of the gas fields, mitigate the damage and losses sustained by the two blow outs and take immediate effective measures to realize full compensation for destruction of the valuable natural gas resources and the damage to live and property and environment by the blow outs. The Court has further given the following interim orders: i) restrained the government from making any payment to Niko in respect of Feni Gas Field or on any other account;
21

ii) directed the Ministry of Energy, Petrobangla and Bapex to submit the Investigation Reports of different committees dated 7 February, 2005, 13 April, 2005, 4 June, 2005, 13 August, 2005, 28 August, 2005 and 3 September, 2005 on the blow outs within 15 days of receipt of the order; iii) directed the government to submit a report within 45 days of receipt of the order specifying the measures that have been taken against Niko to recover compensation for the successive blows out; iv) directed Niko to submit name and particulars of the individual and corporate shareholders of Niko Resources Ltd., and Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd.; v) directed freezing of all the bank accounts of respondent Niko maintained in Bangladesh. 41. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 9089/05 (Construction of Jetty in Coxs Bazar) In a public interest litigation filed by BELA challenging the decision of the Coxs Bazar Sea Beach Management Committee to construct a jetty in the Ecological Critical Area (ECA) of the Coxs Bazar Sea Beach, a division bench of the High Court comprising Mr. Justice Abdul Matin and Mr. Justice Md. Rezaul Haque has stayed all activities in connection with the construction of the Jetty. The petition has been filed against, amongst others, the Secretaries, Ministries of Environment and Forest, Communication, Civil Aviation and Tourism, Deputy Commissioner, Coxs Bazar. The petition was filed by BELA on request from Coxs Bazar Unnayan O Paribesh Shangrakkhan Parishad and Coxs Bazar Environmental Journalists Forum. The grievance of the petitioner was that the Sea Beach Management Committee was not authorized to introduce commercial activities in the beach area or undertake/authorize construction in the beach area in the name of development. Further the decision of the Committee to go for such unplanned construction and introduction of commercial activities have been taken without any environmental clearance from the government. Such decisions also reflect the insensitiveness of the Committee to protect the ecologically fragile beach that has already been declared ECA by the government for its critical condition. The local people apprehend that the claim of the Committee that the jetty is needed to facilitate rescue and security operations and also to protect the fish trawlers from sea-pirates and enable the Coast Guard, Bangladesh Rifles and Police to prevent the pirates is not tenable as these objectives have no relevance to the construction of a Jetty. Instead the hurried construction of the Jetty, non-disclosure of the source of fund and the proposition to collect toll from it clearly reveal that the actual agenda behind the construction of the Jetty is hidden and as such the same in contrary to public interest. Upon hearing the petitioner, the Honble High Court has further issued a rule nisi upon the respondents to show cause as to why the decision for construction of the Jetty and the construction of the Jetty for commercial purposes in the ECA of the Coxs Bazar Sea Beach without having the authority to do so shall not be declared unlawful, unauthorized and of no legal effect and why the Jetty shall not be directed to be removed and dismantled and also why the respondents shall not be directed to refrain from authorizing any commercial activity in the ECA of the sea beach.

22

42. Gaurang Proshad Roy and Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 5732 of 2005 (Illegal Shrimp Cultivation at Dakop, Khulna) In a Writ Petition filed by BELA and local affected people of Dakop Upazilla of Khulna regarding issuance of Shrimp Cultivation Licence and forced flow of saline water over the agricultural lands of the local affected people, a Division Bench of the High Court comprising Mr. Justice Md. Abdul Matin and Mr. Justice Mamnun Rahman on 13 August, 2005 issued a Rule Nisi upon the respondents to show cause as to (i) why the issuance of licence by the Upazilla Nirbahi Officer and Upazilla Fisheries Officer for shrimp cultivation in the five Unions namely, Bajua, Banishanta, Dakop, Kailashgonj and Laudob of Polder No. 33 of the Dakop Upazilla shall not be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect as being contrary to the provisions of laws; (ii) why forced intrusion of salt water over the agricultural lands of the affected local people for cultivation of shrimp shall not be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect; (iii) why the respondents shall not be directed to compensate the affected people for the loss suffered by them due to flow of saline water over their lands; (iv) why all the respondents shall not be directed to take appropriate measures to prevent the unauthorized use of the sluice gates and public water bodies by the shrimp cultivators in Polder No. 33 under Upazilla Dakop, Khulna; and (v) why projects for cultivation of shrimp and production thereof in saline water shall not be required to be regulated in public interest by the provisions of the Environment Conservation Act, 1995. 43. Sramik Nirapatta Forum and others v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 3566 of 2005 (Collapse of Spectrum Sweater Factory Building) A writ petition was moved on 24 May, 2005 seeking judicial intervention to redress the grievances of the victims of the collapse of the building of Spectrum Sweater Industries Ltd. at Palashbari, Savar that took place on the early hours of 11 April, 2005. Filed at the instance of 4 injured workers and 9 rights based organizations working under the umbrella of Sramik Nirapatta Forum, the petition further sought direction to prevent further disasters in future. The petition was filed against the Secretaries, Ministries of Home, Labour and Employment, Industries, Food and Disaster, Land, Ministry of Environment and Forest, DC, Dhaka, Chief Inspector of Factories, RAJUK, Chief Executive Officer of Savar Cantonment Board, DG, Fire Service, President, BGMEA and three owners of the Spectrum Sweator Industries Ltd., amongst others. Upon hearing the petitioner, a division bench of the High Court Division comprising Mr. Justice M. A. Matin and Mr. Justice A.F.M. Abdur Rahman issued a Rule Nisi to be returnmable within two weeks, calling upon all the Respondents to show cause as to why they should not be directed to take necessary measures and legal actions (i) to carry out and conduct an effective and thorough public inquiry, by a Commission to be constituted by this Hon'ble Court chaired by a sitting or retired judge of the Supreme Court,
23

and relevant expert members to identify the reasons for the collapse and persons and agencies responsible, and to make recommendations to prevent any such disaster in future; (ii) to secure payments of adequate compensation and arrange for rehabilitation in favour of the victims of the said collapsed factory as prescribed in the Fatal Accident Act, 1885, the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and other applicable laws and rules; (iii) against the garments factories operating in Dhaka, Narayanganj and Chittagong in unauthorised buildings and without adequate safety measures as directed by the judgment dated 31 May, 2001 in Writ Petition No. 6070 of 1997; (iv) to ensure appropriate protective measures to prevent such disasters in future and also to protect the families of the victims of such incidents. The Court further passed interim orders directing the Deputy Commissioner of Dhaka, RAJUK and the BGMEA to produce their investigation reports before the Court. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka, Chief Inspector of Factories, RAJUK and Savar Cantonment Board have also been directed to submit reports before the Court on legality of the construction of the building, ownership of land and safety conditions of the buildings. The reports are to be submitted within one week from the reopening of the court after the vacation. Meanwhile, the Chairman, Managing Director and Director of the Spectrum Sweater Industries Ltd. have been restrained from disposing of any of their assets and properties. The four injured worker who filed the petition include Md. Kamal Hossain, Monjurul Islam, Mozaffar, Md. Motalib. The petitioner organizations include Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA), Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST), Bangladesh Society for the Enforcement of Human Rights (BSEHR), Bangladesh National Women Lawyers Association (BNWLA), Centre for Sustainable Development, Karmojibi Nari, Nijera Kori, and ODHIKAR. The matter is pending for hearing. 44. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) and Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 7123 of 2006 (Water Logging in Jessore) A Writ Petition was moved on 13 August, 2006 by BELA seeking appropriate judicial intervention to address the sufferings of the local people of 144 villages of the three Upazilas of Abhaynagar, Manirampur and Keshabpur of Jessore caused by the long standing water logging resulting from the implementation of the faulty Khulna Jessore Drainage Rehabilation Project (KJDRP) of ADB and the BWDB. The petition has been filed at a time when due to the KJDRP more than one lack people of the 144 villagers are forced to live an in human life with their homestead, agricultural lands, academic institutions, road are remaining under water since October, 2005. Although in a meeting held in last November, 2005 with the three members of Parliament present it was decided that the situation shall be dealt with like emergency/war situation, and that the BWDB continues to claim that it has submitted yet another project worth 92 crores taka, the local people are yet to be rescued from this unprecedented water logging that resulted in serious and unbearable sufferings for the villagers who had no agricultural activities and resultantly no economic returns for a long time. Local people have demanded removal of the Bhobodoho sluice gate that they believe to be root of the problem and have for long been pressing for adequate relief and supports from the national and local administration, but of no avail.
24

Following the motion hearing, a division bench of the High Court comprising Mr. Justice Syed Mohammad Dusthagir Hossain and Mr. Justice Mamnon Rahaman has directed, amongst others, the Chairman, Bangladesh Water Development Board, the Deputy Commissioner of Jessore, the Deputy Director, Department of Environment, Khulna and the Upazilla Nirbahi Officers of Abhaynagar, Manirampur and Keshabpur to provide all such services, products, goods and other supports within their means that are required to ensure that the people of the affected villages of the three Upazillas are safety located and are receiving food, water, medicine and other essentials during such period as the water logging continues. The Honble Court has further directed the government agencies to show cause within a month as to why their failure to address the catastrophic and prolonged water logging in the three Upazillas of Jessore prevailing for the last few years and failure of the respondents to protect the lives, properties, livelihoods, safety, comfort, health of the villagers from the adverse impact of such unprecedented water congestion should not be declared to be without lawful authority and in violation of their statutory duties. The respondents have also been directed to show cause within four weeks as to why they should not be directed to draw up necessary action plans in consultation with the local people and why a direction should not be issued upon them to form a Committee composed of the persons nominated by the Supreme Court to permanently resolve such catastrophe and arrange for adequate compensation for the local people against the losses resulting from such water logging. The matter is pending for hearing. 45. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) and other v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 7465 of 2006 (Dumping Waste in Savar Amin Bazar by DCC) In a writ petition filed on 6 August, 2006 by BELA, challenging the dumping of waste by the DCC in the flood flow zone of Konda and Baliarpur mouzas of Savar, Amin Bazar, a division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Mr. Justice Syed Mohammad Dusthagir Hossain and Mr. Justice Mamnon Rahaman has restrained the Mayor, DCC and the Project Leader of Dhaka Mohanogoreer Bibhinno Elakar Obokatthamo o Paribesh Unnayan Prokolpa of DCC. The case has been filed against, amongst others, the Secretaries, Ministry of Land, Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development and Cooperatives, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Ministry of Housing and Public Works, the Mayor, Dhaka City Corporation, the Chairman, Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha, RAJUK, the Director General, Department of Environment (DoE). The Honble Court has issued Rule on the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned No Objection letter of Rajuk and the Site Clearance of DoE purporting to allow conversion /use of subflood flow zone and agriculture land of mouza Baliarpur and Konda as Waste Dumping Depot by the DCC shall not be declared to have been done without lawful authority and are of no legal effect. The rule has also required the government to show cause as to why it should not be directed to take appropriate measure to protect the flood flow zone of Konda and Baliarpur villages and to frame appropriate Rules under the Environment Conservation Act and the Dhaka City Corporation Ordinance prescribing the procedure for waste management. The matter is pending for hearing.

25

46. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 3916 of 2006 (MT Alfaship not to be Allowed to Proceed Further) A writ petition filed by BELA challenging the legality of the entry of the vessel MT Alfaship (listed as one of the 50 dangerous ships by the Green Peace) into the territorial waters of Bangladesh for scrapping purposes has been moved on 2 nd May, 2006 before a division bench of the High Court comprising Mr. Justice Awlad Ali and Mr. Justice Zinat Ara. Upon hearing the petition, the Honble Court issued a Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why their failure to prevent the entry of MT Alfaship into the territorial waters of Bangladesh and why the arrival of the vessel MT Alfaship without the approval of the DG, Department of Shipping shall not be declared to be without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. The Rule has been made returnable for 3 weeks. The Court has further required the government to show cause as to why it should not be directed to take steps for banning importation to Bangladesh any of the 50 ships identified as hazardous by the Green Peace. Pending hearing the rule, the Court has directed the Director General, Coast Guard, the Director General, Department of Shipping, the Collector of Customs and the Chairman, Chittagong Port Authority not to allow the vessel MT Alfaship to proceed further towards Chittagong Port or the internal water of Bangladesh for the next two months. Worth mentioning considering the environmental hazards that breaking of MT Alfaship may cause to the environment, the Green Peace has listed the ship amongst the 50 most hazardous ships. The Directorate of Shipping, on consideration of the environmental hazards of the ship, has successively refused to allow opening of L/C for importing the ship for scrapping purposes. Despite the warning of Green Peace and the refusal of the Directorate of Shipping, MT Alfaship has already entered the outer anchorage of Bangladesh for scrapping purposes the legality of which has been challenged by BELA. The rule has been made absolute. 47. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 3055 of 2006 (Protection of Molgiri Khal) On 9 April, 2006, BELA moved a writ petition concerning the unlawful filling up of the Molgiri khal located at Sayastabad Union, Barisal Sadar Upazilla, under district of Barisal. The writ petition was filed against Secretaries of Ministry of Land, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives, the Mayor, Barisal City Corporation, the Director General, Department of Environment, Deputy Commissioner, Barisal, the Executive Engineer, Bangladesh Water Development Board, Barishal, Deputy Director, Department of Environment, Barisal Division, Upazila Nirbahi Officer, Barisal Sadar Upazila and Chairman, Sayastabad Union Parishad. Upon hearing the petitioner a Division Bench of High Court Division of the Supreme Court comprising Mr. Justice Syed Mohammad Dusthagir Hossain and Mr. Justice Mamnon Rahaman has issued a Rule Nisi calling upon the aforesaid respondents, to show cause as to why filling up of the Molgiri khal located at Sayastabad Union, Barisal Sadar Upazila, under district of Barisal by the Chairman, Sayastabad Union Parishad shall not be declared unauthorised, unlawful and against public interest. Moreover, why they shall not be directed to protect the Molgiri Khal from all unlawful encroachments, earth fillings and/or grabbing and restore it to its original position. Pending hearing of the Rule, the Court passed an interim order of injunction restraining from any further earth filling over the Molgiri khal and also passed an order directing the concerned governmental agencies to demarcate on-site the boundaries of the Molgiri khal with appropriate devices to prevent any further encroachment/earth filling and/or grabbing over the same. The matter is pending for hearing.
26

48. Sramik Nirapotta Forum v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 2019 of 2006 (Fire at KTS Garments) In a writ petition moved on 8 March, 2006 by a coalition of 11 human rights and environmental organizations by the name Sramik Nirapotta Forum, a division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Mr. Justice Abdul Matin and Mr. Justice A T M Fazle Kabir has directed the Ministry of Home, DC, Chittagong, DG, Department of Environment and the President, BGMEA to produce their investigation reports regarding the cause of fire in the KTS Textile Mill before the Court within 15 (fifteen) days. The Honble Court has also directed the President of BGMEA and the owners and management of KTS Textile Mill to submit in the form of a report a complete account of the amount paid to the victims as compensation and the basis for the computation of such amount within 15 days. The respondents have further been directed to take steps to provide necessary medical treatment for the victims of the fire on 23.02.2006 at the KTS factory. In the public interest litigation filed by 11 NGOs challenging the inaction and omission of the responsible government agencies in preventing fire and other accidents in the garment sector the Court issued a rule upon the concerned agencies to show cause within four weeks as to why a National Committee shall not be formed to monitor compliance by garments factories with the applicable laws on fire safety and to inspect all garments factories operating in Dhaka, Narayanganj and Chittagong to ensure compliance with fire safety measures, and in particular to ensure that they have adequate numbers of gates which are kept open during working hours and also adequate emergency exits. The Court has required the respondents to show cause why they should not be directed to secure payment of adequate compensation to the workers who have been injured in the said fire and dependents of deceased workers. The matter is pending for hearing. 49. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 586/06 (Construction of CNG Station in the Protected Batali Hill of Chittagong) In a Writ Petition filed by BELA challenging the construction of CNG station in the Batalli Hill of Chittagong, a division bench comprising Mr. Justice Abdul Matin and Mr. Justice A T M Fazle Rabbi issued a rule upon the respondents to show cause as to why the permission granted by the Chittagong Development Authority (CDA) and the allotment made by the Railway in favour of M/s Rainbow CNG station to use 0.32 decimals of land in the Strategic Open Space of Batalli Hill for construction of Rainbow CNG Refueling Station and Conversion Workshop shall not be declared to have been issued without lawful authority. Bangladesh Railway allotted land to one M/s Rainbow for construction of CNG station right at the bottom of the Batalli Hill in violation of the Master Plan of Chittagong and the Open Space Protection Act, 2000. This allotment rose serious public concern and following that the Chittagong Development Agency refrained from issuing any clearance to the Rainbow authorities for construction. However, subsequently the CDA gave conditional permission for clearance last November, 2005 that BELA has challenged in the petition it has filed. The petition has been filed against the Secretaries, Ministries of Communication, Environment and Forest and Housing and Public Works; the Mayor, Chittagong City Corporation; the Chairmen, Chittagong Development Authority and the Director Generals of Bangladesh Railway and Department of Environment, amongst others. On motion hearing, the division bench comprising Mr. Justice Abdul Matin and Mr. Justice A T M Fazle Rabbi has issued rule upon the respondents to show cause as to why the permission
27

granted by the CDA and the allotment made by the Railway in favour of M/s Rainbow CNG station to use 0.32 decimals of land in the Strategic Open Space of Batalli Hill for construction of Rainbow CNG Refueling Station and Conversion Workshop shall not be declared to have been issued without lawful authority. The respondents shall also show cause within three weeks as to why they shall not be directed to dismantle the construction and restore the open space to its original condition. The matter is pending for hearing. 50. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 4962/05 (Illegal Operation of a Brick Field in Naodaboga, Bogra) In a writ petition filed by BELA against illegal construction and operation of a brick field, a division bench of the High Court issued a Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the establishment and operation of the brick manufacturing/kiln namely M/S A.R. Constructions in the village of Naodaboga, Upazilla- Sonatola, District-Bogra should not be declared to have been done unauthorized, illegal and in violation of laws. The Court also directed to take effective and appropriate measures to prevent the illegal activities in operating the said manufacturing/kiln and to remove the same from the prohibited proximity of the said village of Sonatola Upazila as the same is against public interest and in violation of the fundamental rights of the villagers. The matter is pending for hearing. 51. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 8815/05 (Illegal Operation of Brick Fields in Lalpur, Natore) In a writ petition filed by BELA against illegal establishment and operation of listed brick fields at Lalpur under Natore district, a division bench of the High Court issued a Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the establishment and operation of the listed brick manufacturing fields/kilns should not be declared to have been done unauthorized, illegal and in violation of laws. The Court also directed to take effective and appropriate measures to prevent the operation of the listed brick manufacturing fields/kilns and to remove the same from the prohibited proximity of the said villages of Lalpur Upazila as the same is against public interest and in violation of the fundamental rights of the villagers. The matter is pending for hearing. 52. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association 6025/05 (Prevention of the unlawful operation of Akij Bidi Factory) BELA v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No6025/05 In a Writ Petition filed by BELA against the unlawful operation of the Akij Bidi Factory Limited in the Village-North Musrat Madati, Post-Bhotmaree, Upazilla-Kaligonj, Lalmonirhat, the Honble Court issued a Rule Nisi calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the establishment of the Akij Bidi Factory Limited (Bidi Manufacturing and Tobacco Crushing Centres) without obtaining any environmental clearance certificate from the concerned authorities being violative of the provisions of the Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act, 1995, the Environment Conservation Rules, 1997, the Factories Act, 1965 and the Factories Rules, 1979 and the fundamental rights of the villagers as guaranteed under the Constitution shall not be declared to be illegal, without lawful authority and having no legal effect and why the Respondents shall not be directed to take effective remedial measures to prevent the unauthorized and unlawful activities of the factory. The matter is pending for hearing.
28

53. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 8603/05 (Stone crushing mill in residential area at Jaflong) A Writ Petition was filed on 4 December, 2005 where Rule Nisi was issued by the Court calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the unauthorized establishment and operation of stone crushing mills/machines in the Jaflong Forest area in Jaintapur and Goainghat Upazilas shall not be declared to be in violation of laws, against public interest and as such illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court also directed the concerned authorities to evict the illegal stone crushers from the protected and ecologically sensitive forest area of Jaflong, to prevent any further unlawful and unauthorized activities of stone crushing in the said area and to realize compensation for the said illegal and destructive activities. The matter is pending for hearing. 54. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 488 of 2006 (Protection of Rajshahi Town Protection Embankment from encroachment) A writ petition was heard on 25 May, 2006 where the Court issued a Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned failure to protect the banks of the river Padma and the Rajshahi Town Protection Embankment from encroachments by unauthorized persons, extraction of sands within prohibited proximity from the Embankment and plying of heavy vehicles over the Embankment thereby threatening the river Padma and the Embankment shall not be declared to have been without lawful authority and why they should not be directed to take immediate appropriate measures for removing the illegal encroachments and establishments from the river bank of Padma and the Rajshahi Town Protection for protecting and maintaining the river side and the Embankment in a manner best suited in the public interest. The matter is pending for hearing. 55. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 9216/06 (Maintenance of Jalalabad Shishu Park, Sylhet) A Writ Petition was filed on 17 October, 2006 where Rule Nisi was issued by the Court calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the omission to secure maintenance of the Jalalabad Shishu Park and Osmani Shishu Udyan of Sylhet Divisional City and allowing illegal encroachment and unlawful occupation over the same and using/purporting to use the same for commercial construction and other purposes threatening the greenery and environment of the City and the civic, environmental, recreational and aesthetic rights of the City dwellers in violation of the fundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 31 and 32 of the Constitution shall not be declared to be without lawful authority and is no legal effect and why the respondents shall not be directed to ensure proper maintenance and protection of said open spaces of the Sylhet City as required under the Sylhet City Corporation Ordinance, 2001 and Act No. 36 of 2000. Pending hearing of the Rule, the Court also passed an order directing the respondents to (i) complete, within two months, the process of demarcation of the said two open spaces of the Sylhet City namely the Jalalabad Shishu Park and the Osmani Shishu Udyan; and (ii) issue an injunction restraining Sylhet City Corporation from constructing any commercial building at Jalalabad Shishu Park or otherwise converting the said Park. The matter is pending for hearing.
29

56. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No.7466/06 (Protection of Kalibari Pukur, a Public Water body in Sunamgonj) A writ petition has been filed by BELA on against the concerned agencies to protect the Kalibari Pukur, a public water body, located at Sunamgonj Paurashova, under the district of Sunamgonj from illegal earth filling. The Court issued a rule on 14th August 2006 against the concerned agencies as to why they shall not be directed to protect the Kalibarir Pukur from all encroachment, earth-filling and grabbing and restore the same to its original position. The matter is pending for hearing. 57. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. A writ was filed where the Court issued a Rule Nisi calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the impugned Agreement signed between the Assistant Commissioner (Land) of Chhatak Upazila and Chatak Cement Factory, represented by the Managing Director on 27.03.05 leasing out 22.65 acres of khas land of the popularly known Shoi Tila in favour of M/s. Chhatak Cement Company Ltd. to use the same for industrial activity and the impugned action and omission of the responding in allowing removal of earth from the said hillock shall not be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and why they shall not be directed to take all necessary and effective measures to prevent cutting or razing of hillocks in the Fakirtila and Nijgaon Mouzas under Chhatak Upazilla, and Nasimpur Mouza under Doarabazar Upazilla, District Sunamgonj by any one. The matter is pending for hearing.

58. Abdul Hamid and Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 6097 of 2006 (Polluting residential area by M/s. Bonoful Bread factory) A Writ Petition was filed by BELA against the Secretary of MoEF, Mayor, Divisional Commissioner, DG of DoE, Deputy Commissioner and other concerned agencies for the failure of respective authorities to take any action against Bonoful Avijat Confectionary & Pastry Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. for running a factory in a residential area without an environmental clearance certificate & causing health hazards to the inhabitants of the surrounding area. In the writ petition the Honble court issued a rule calling upon the respondents as to why the respective authorities should not be directed to take appropriate actions against the factory owner for its unlawful operation in the residential area and why they should not be directed to recover appropriate compensation for the environmental damages caused by the factory. The matter is pending for hearing. 59. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ. Petition No. 8893/ August 31 2006(Shrimp Cultivation at Botiaghata, Khulna) A Writ Petition was filed against Secretaries, Ministry of Environment & Forest, Ministry of Land, DG-DoE, Deputy Commission and others against the forced flow of saline water by identified shrimp cultivators over the agricultural lands of the villages Halia and Shialidanga in the Bhandarkot Union under Upazilla Botiaghata, DistrictKhulna affecting thereby fundamental rights
30

of the villagers as guaranteed under Articles 15, 31, 32, 40 and 42 of the Constitution of Peoples Republic of Bangladesh. After hearing the Petitioner, the Honble Court was pleased to issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why allowing saline water shrimp cultivation in the Halia and Shialidanga villages under Bhandarkot Union of Botiaghata Upazilla,Khulna; and failure to prevent forced intrusion of salt water over the agricultural lands of the villages of Halia and Shialidanga in the Bhandarkot Union under Botiaghata Upazilla, by identified shrimp cultivators shall not be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect as being violative of the Bangladesh Water Development Board Order, 2000; The Environment Conservation Act, 1995; Shrimp Mohal Management Policy; Circulars of the Cabinet Division dated 01 January, 1998 and 03 September, 1998 and the fundamental rights of the land owners and inhabitants of the villagers of Halia village as guaranteed under Articles 31, 32, 40 and 42 of the Constitution. The respondents were also directed to prevent saline water flow in the villages of Halia and Shialidanga and to compensate the land owners of Halia and Shialidanga villages for the loss suffered by them due to forced flow of saline water over their lands caused by the identified shrimp cultivators. The matter is pending for hearing. 60. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 11594 of 2006 (Pollution caused by a polythene factory at Keranigonj) A Writ was filed against the establishment and operation of a Plastic & Polythene Recycling Factory named Hafsa Enterprise. After hearing the Petitioner, the Court issued a Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the establishment and operation of the Hafsa Enterprise without obtaining any environmental clearance certificate and adopting pollution fighting devices being violative of the provisions of the Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act, 1995, the Environment Conservation Rules, 1997, the Factories Act, 1965 and the Factories Rules, 1979 and threatening the fundamental rights of the villagers as guaranteed under Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution shall not be declared to be illegal, without lawful authority and having no legal effect and why the respondents shall not be directed to take effective remedial measures to prevent the unauthorized and unlawful activities of respondent No. 9 as sanctioned and required under the applicable laws. Pending hearing of the Rule, the Court also passed an interim order of injunction restraining the owner of the factory from continuing with his polythene recycling operations in the name of Hafsa Enterprise (Plastic & Polythene Recycling Factory) situated and operating in village Kamarta, under Keranigong upazila, Dhaka. The matter is pending for hearing. 61. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 7466 of 2006 (Saw mill within the Reserved Forest at Kuakata) A writ was filed challenging the operation of a saw mill situated within prohibited proximity of reserved forest in Kolapara Upazilla under the district of Patuakhali. Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the establishment and operation of the saw mill called Abu Saleh Rice Flour and Sawmill in mouza Latachapali, JL No. 34, Khatian No. 1310, Dag no. 5254 within the prohibited proximity of the reserved forest of Amtolee and without obtaining license/clearance from the concerned authorities and also the failure of the other respondents in preventing the same as per the Forest Act, 1927, the Sawmill (License) Rules, 1998 and the
31

Environmental Conservation Act, 1995 and the Rules of 1997 made thereunder shall not be declared illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The matter is pending for hearing. 62. BELA v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 2013 of 2007 (Brick fields in agricultural lands in Barisal) Challenging the establishment and operation of the listed brick manufacturing fields/kilns in Barisal, BELA filed a writ petition where the Honble Court on 12/3/07 issued a rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the establishment and operation of the listed brick manufacturing fields/kilns should not be declared to have been done unauthorized and illegal as the same violate the provisions of the Local Government (Union Parishads) Ordinance, 1983, the Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act, 1995 and the Environment Conservation Rules of 1997 made thereunder, the Brick Burning (Control) Act, 1989, the Smoke Nuisance Act, 1905, Penal Code, 1860 and why the respondents should not be directed to take effective and appropriate measures to prevent the operation of the brick manufacturing fields/kilns and to remove the same from the prohibited proximity of the villages of Uttar Rahamatpur, Khudrakatthi, Mohishadi, Doharika and Mirgonj under Babuganj Police Station, District Barisal as the same is against public interest and in violation of the fundamental rights of the villagers guarantee under Articles 27, 31, 32, 40 and 42. The rule is returnable within 4 weeks.

63. Md. Sarwardi Chowdhury v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 10260 of 2006 (Meridian Washing Plant in Badda) BELA filed the application to be respondent No, 5, as a party aggrieved by the severe noise, air and water pollution created by the petitioners organization. 64. BELA v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 12025 of 2006 (Gulshan Lake) Challenging the unlawful allotment of plot and illegal encroachment on and filling up of the water body popularly known as Banani, Gulshan and Baridhara Lake (hereinafter referred as Gulshan Lake) in deviation from the verdict and directions of the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 588 of 200 and Writ Nos. 751 of 2000 and 4803 of 2006. The Honble Court issued a rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the allotment as plot No. 20 A/1, Road No. 26, Gulshan in the lakeside greenery in favour of respondent No. 10 (Ms. Mahmuda Karim) and 11 (Ms. Nazma Karim) and the continuance of earth filling on the Lake water by respondent No. 7 to 11 (Md. Mojibur Rahman, Ms. Jalia Rahman, Md. Mosharraf Hossain, Ms. Mahumuda Karim and Ms. Nazma Karim) being violative of the Town Improvement Act, 1953 and Environment Conservation Act, 1995 and rules made thereunder 1997, and the Gazette Notification dated 26 November, 2001, the Master Plan and the layout plan shall not be declared illegal and as to why the respondents shall not be directed to remove the earth already dumped in the lake and restore the area to its original position. While pending hearing of the rule,an order of injunction has been passed against respondents 7 to 11 against any further earth filling or development in the lake for a period of 3 (three) months from 15/1/2007. Subsequently in 21/1/2007, another direction was passed for Rajuk to not disturb the peaceful possession of respondent No.9. Later on 13/4/2007, stay was extended for a period of 6 (six) months.

32

65. BELA v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 3802 of 2007 (Feroja Dyeing in Sirajgonj) The petition challenged the action of respondents allowing respondent No. 10 (Md. Zaher Ali) to establish and operate the M/S Zaher Process Mill locally known as M/S Feroja Dyeing and Process Mill at village Balshabari, upazila Ullapara, district Sirajgonj in violation of existing environmental laws. On 23/4/07, the Honble Court issued a rule nisi for 4 weeks calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why Action of the respondents allowing the establishment to operate, locally known as M/S Feroja Dyeing and Process Mill at village Balshabari, upazila Ullapara, district Sirajgong in violationof Law and the issuance of Environmental Clearance Certificate by respondent No.3 (DOE) and 5 (DOE, Rajshahi) in favour of the hazardous and polluting Mill of respondent No. 11 shall not be declared to be bad in the eye of law.

66. BELA v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 506 of 2007 (Ghorashal and urea fertiliser industries) The petition was filed for a direction upon the respondents to adopt appropriate measures against the unlawful and hazardous operation of the Urea Fertiliser factory operating in Ghorashal and Palash area and to protect the environment and lives, property, health, safety and comfort of the villages of Khanepur, Balia and Katthaliapara village threatened by such unlawful operation. On 28/1/07, the Honble Court issued a rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the operation of the said factories by respondent 2, 3, 9, and 10 (Ministry of Industres) (Bangladesh Chemical Industries Corporation) (MD of Urea Fertilizer, Ghorashal) (MD of Palash Urea) without having environmental clearance certificate from respondent No. 4 (DOE) and without any effective waste disposal systems including the legally binding Effluent Treatment Plants being violative of the provisions of the existing laws and the natural rights of villages of Khanepur Balia and Katthaliapara shall not be declared to be illegal without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and as to why respondents should not be directed to take effective remedial/corrective measures to prevent the authorised and unlawful activities of respondent No. 2,3,9 and 10 as sanctioned and required under the applicable laws. The Rule was made returnable with 6 (six) weeks. 67. BELA v The Secretary, Ministry of Public Works and others Writ Petition No. 1859 of 2008 (Suharawardi Uddyan land) Transfer/allocation of 25 acres of land of the Suharawardi Uddyan by respondent No. 4 to 7 (Chief Engineer, Department of Public Works) (DOE) (RAJUK) (President, Dhaka Club Limited)for the purpose of converting the same into a golf course for its members violating thereby the Master Plan of the city and threatening the civic, environmental, recreational and aesthetic rights of the City dwellers. On 9/3/08 a rule was issued and directed the petitioners to serve notices upon the respondents at their costs. 68. BELA v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 23 of 2008 (Protect workers in the ship breaking yards, Sitakunda) The petition was filed for a direction upon the respondents to protect the workers employed in the ship breaking yards operating in Sitakunda, under District Chittagong and to give adequate compensation to the families of the deceased and the injured labourers/workers against damages caused by explosions or otherwise in the yards. On 7/1/08, the Honble Court issued a rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why they should not be directed to take measures to protect the labourers/workers employed in the ship breaking yards and to adequate compensate the families of the deceased and the injured ones and also directed respondents 11 and 12 ( Chief Inspector of Establishment and Factories) (DC of Kotwali, Chittagong) to file a
33

report before the Court stating (i) the number of labourers/workers who have so far died or been injured as a result of casualties in the ship breaking yards, (ii) reasons for such loss of life and injury of the labourers/workers, the amount of compensation given to the families of the dead labourers/workers and injured labourers (iii) the measures taken by them to prevent such incidents of loss of life and injury.
69.BELA v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 7260 of 2008 (M.T.Enterprise)

The petition was filed challenging the entry of the Green Peace listed ship M.T. Enterprise into Bangladesh despite the refusal of the country of allowing entry of other two Green Peace listed ships namely MT Alfaship and SS Norway. While M.T. Enterprise made its entry into the country following dubious attempts of the Department of Shipping and has already been substantially dismantled, the High Court bench in a verdict delivered on March 17, 2009 directed that none of the other Green Peace listed ships shall be imported into Bangladesh for breaking purposes unless and until appropriate scrutiny of relevant information as to their waste content and cleaning is done by authorities in line with applicable laws and proper infrastructural facility is in place to deal with such ships. Among the others the MoEF and DoE are directed to ensure closure of all shipbreaking yards which are operating without necessary Environmental Clearance as required by law; the law-enforcing agencies are directed to accord cooperation and assistance to the DoE; the vessels having hazardous wastes or containing hazardous materials has to be decontaminated at source or outside the territories of Bangladesh. Following the court directions (on January 26, 2010) a high-powered committee has been formed to monitor and to take necessary steps regarding ship-breaking activities in the country, headed by the Forest and Environment Secretary. The High court on 11 May 2010, in an order ruled that no ship could be imported in Bangladesh without pre-cleaning and environmental certificate from exporting countries. 70. BELA v. The Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests and others Writ Petition No. 1908 of 2008 (Pollution of Narod River) The petition was filed seeking directions against the pollution of the Narod river caused by the unlawful operation of the Natore Sugar Mills and Jamuna Distillery Ltd. By respondent Nos. 13 and 14 (MD of Natore and Jamuna) and also against encroachment over the river in violation of the Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act, 1995, the Environment Conservation Rules, 1997, the Bangladesh Water Development Board Act, 2000, the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 the Paurashava Ordinance, 1977, Land Management Manual and other applicable laws. On 24/3/08, the Honble Court issued a rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the operation of the said mills and distillery without environmental clearance and appropriate pollution fighting devices being violative of the said laws and threatening to the legally recognized rights of the local people shall not be declared to be illegal without lawful authority and ar of no legal effect. This rule is returnable within 4 (four) weeks. 71. BELA v. The Secretary, Ministry of Public Works and others Writ Petition No. 9245 of 2008 (Khilgaon Shishu Park) This petition was concerning failure of the respondents No 1-6 (Ministry of Housing) (Chief Engineer, Public Works) ( MOEF) (DG DOE) (DCC) (RAJUK) in discharging their public duties and statutory obligations as mandated by the Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act, 1995 and the rules made thereunder 1997, the town improvement act, 1953 as amended by Act No. XXI of 1987, and the Building Construction Act, 1952 as amended by Act No. XII of 1987, to protect Khilgaon Shishu Park located in Khilgaon Chowdhury Para, Dhaka from illegal encroachment and occupation of the same and ongoing construction thereon by the respondent No. 7 (DG of Bangladesh Ansar) threatening the greenery and environment of the City and the civic, environmental recreational and aesthetic rights of the city dwellers. On 30.11.2008, the Honble Court issued a rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why failure of
34

respondent No. 1-6, in discharging their public duties and statutory obligations as mandated by various laws to protect Khilgaon Shishu Park located in Khilgaon Chowdhury Para, Dhaka from illegal encroachment and occupation of the same and ongoing construction thereon by the Respondent No.7 threatening the greenery and environment of the City and the civic, environmental, recreational and aesthetic rights of the City dwellers as evident shall not be declared illegal to have been done without lawful authority and are of no legal effect and the rule is returnable within four weeks. On 11.3.2009, an order was passed directing the respondent No. 7 not to undertake any further construction on the disputed land till disposal of the rule. 72. BELA v. Ministry of Environment and others Writ Petition No. 1207 of 2009 (Sonaichari) The petition was filed against lease agreement dated 16 October, 2008 executed on behalf of respondent No.7 (DC Chittagong) and between respondent Nos. 11, 12 and 15 (Upz Nirbahi officer)(Assistant Commissioner (Land)(Sitakunda) (Md. Alauddin) thereby purporting to allot a total of 5.5 acres of coastal green belt forest land of Moddhya Sonaichhari Mouza under Sitakunda Police Station in favour of respondent No. 15 for constructing therein ship breaking yard and similar other lease agreements in favour of respondent Nos. 16-19 and 6cutting of trees by respondents Nos. 15-19 (shipping companies) from the coastal green belt of Sonaichhari mouja under Sitakunda Upazila of Chittagong district for the purpose of constructing ship breaking yards. On 24.2.2009, the Honble Court issued a rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned lease agreement and similar other agreements as executed by or on behalf of respondent Nos. 7, 11 and 12 purporting to lease out lands of the coastal green belt of Sonaichhari Mouza under Sitakunda Police Station in favour of respondent Nos 15-19 for construction of ship breaking yards therin shall not be declared illegal, against public interest and without lawful authority and with the activities of respondent Nos. 15-19 in relation to the establishing of ship breaking yards in the coastal green belt of the Sonaichhari Mouza and the failure of the other respondents to prevent the same shall not be declared illegal, malafide and against public interest and also why respondents Nos. 15-19 shall not be directed to compensate for the damages done to the ecology and the public property of the coastal green belt of the Sonaichhari Mouja for attempting to establish their unauthorised ship breaking yards therein. The rule is made returnable within 10 (ten) days. Respondent Nos. 15-19 are restrained from cutting any tress existing on the land in question. 73. BELA v. Bangladesh and Others Writ Petition No. 7578 of 2009 (construction over Bashuri khal and cutting of adjacent hills) The petition filed on 8 November 2009 was regarding illegal construction of water control structure/ embankment over a khal locally known as Bashuri khal by filling it up and by illegal and indiscriminate cutting if a hill adjacent to the khal at Lomba Khola Kaajo Para, no. 303 Doluchchori Mouza, Soroi Union, Lama Upazila, Bandarban Hill Tracts, Bandarban without having any environmental clearance certificate. On 9.11.09, the Honourable High Court issued a rule nisi upon the respondents to show cause as to why they should not be directed to protect the said hill and Bashuri Khali from illegal cutting and filling by respondent No. 11 for construction of the proposed embankment and why further directions shall not be given upon the respondents to initiate legal measures against such unauthorised and illegal activities and also to realize compensation for causing damages to the said hill and khal and people living in the surrounding areas, Also an interim order of injunction was passed for 3 months to prevent any further cutting of the said hill and filling of the said khal.

35

74. BELA v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 3618 of 2009 (Khulna City Interim Water Supply Project) The petition was filed regarding impugned project titled Khulna City Interim Water Supply Project under Crash Programme first approved by the Executive Committee Council (ECNEC) meeting dated 07.07.2004 and subsequently approved in 2008 by the Departmental Project Evaluation Committee of the Local Government Division, now being implemented by respondent 1 (Khulna City Corp), 7 (), 8 and 9 located on both sides of Jessore- Khulna highway. An order was passed by the Honourable High Court on 25 May 2009 issuing a rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the implementation of the impugned project without legally mandatory clearance should not be declared to have been running without lawful authority and against public interest. The rule was returnable on 2.06.2009 On 3 rd of June, an injunction was given to respondent No.1 and was extended till 15 October 2009. The order of status quo granted was extended for a further period of six months on 15 October 2009. 75. BELA v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 5873 of 2009 (Shah Arpin Tila, Sylhet) The petition was concerning illegal extraction of stones by cutting of Shah Arpin Tila measuring 137.50 acre located in Chikadora mouza in dag no. 94, khatian No.1, JL no. 55 under Companygonj upazila of Sylhet district without any environmental clearance certificate. On 25 August 2009, the Honourable High Court issued a rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why they shall not be directed to protect Shah Arpin tila by preventing respondent No. 10 (Bashir company) from cutting of the said tila without any environmental clearance certificate and why further directions shall not be given upon them to initiate measures against respondent No.10 and also realize compensation from the said respondent for causing damage to the said tila and people living in the surrounding areas, Also, an order of injunction was passed restraining from any further cutting of the hills. The rule was returnable in four weeks. Later on 23 Nov, 2009, the order of injunction was extended till the disposal of the rule. 76. BELA v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 4958 of 2009 (Boma Machine) In the said petition, petitioner sought for a direction upon the respondents to stop the operation of the excavators and also remove the same from the Jaflong and Bholaganj stone quarries of the Pian, Dawki and Dhala rivers flowing through Goainghat and Companygonj Upazilas of Sylhet district and thus protect the natural eco-systems of the said rivers and the lives, property and livelihoods of the people living in the said areas. On 20.7.2009, the Honourable High Court of Bangladesh issued a rule nisi upon the respondents to show cause as to why they should not be directed in line with the applicable laws and rules as mentioned in the cause title to protect the rivers from the use of mechanized excavators and why further directions shall not be given upon them to initiate legal measures against such unauthorized and illegal operation of excavators by unscrupulous traders and also to realize compensation from them for causing damages to the said Rivers and the people living in the surrounding areas. Furthermore, the respondents were to directed to prevent any further use of excavators in the stone quarries of Jaflong Bholagong in the river areas for a period of 3 months. The rule was made returnable within 4 (four) weeks. On 15.10.2009, the order of direction granted earlier was extended till disposal of the case. 77. BELA v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 6848/2009 (St. Martins Island) The petition sought for directions upon respondents to regulate commercial tourism in the ecologically fragile Island of the St. Martins and to prevent the indiscriminate and unauthorized constructions of hotels, motels, restaurants etc. in the said island. On 18 October, 2009, the
36

Honourable High Court issued a rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why they should not be directed to act upon their legal mandates in regulating tourism in the Island of St. Martin and in demolishing all unauthorized, unlawful and illegal contractions of commercial houses in the said Island. Moreover, an order of injunction was passed restraining respondents from constructing all unauthorized new commercial buildings for a period of 3 (three) months. Rule returnable within 4 (four) weeks from the date. Also on 15.1.2010, the order of injunction was extended till disposal of the Rule.

78. BELA v. Bangladesh and others

Writ Petition No. 4400 of 2009 (Royal City Housing) The petition was regarding a direction upon the respondents to stop the illegal grabbing and filling up of the Khas lands of the Kuri, Medi, Bharera and Lohajuri beels situated at Gotatikor, Rupanpur, Tayeb Sultam and Habinandi Moujas under Kuchai union of South Surma Upazila of Sylhet. The Honourable High Court on 29 June, 2009 issued a rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the implementation of the two Housing projects by respondent No. 8 (MD, South Surma Ltd) and respondent No. 9 (MD of Royal Homes) in the name and style Royal City Housing project and Sonargaon residential area by filling up the Kuri Beel, Medi beel, Bharera beeland Lohajuri beel and without needed authorization from respondent No. 4 (DoE) and respondent No. 5 (DC) shall not be declared to be illegal ad without lawful authority and of no legal consequence and why the respondents shall not be directed to restore the beels to their original position. Also, an order of injuction was passed from proceeding with any further implementation of their unauthorized housing projects for a period of 3 (three) months.On 12.1.2010, the order of injuction was extended till disposal of the rule. 79. BELA v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 4795 of 2009 (Jadukanta river, Sylhet) This petition was regarding illegal extraction of sands from the banks and beds of the river Jadukanta and cutting of the bank of the said river in the mouzas of Puranlaur, Chaliarghat, Lamashram, Purbodil and Ghagra under Tahirpur upazila of Sunamganj district. On 13.7.2009, the Honourable High Court issued a rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why they should not be directed to protect the river Jadukanta from illegal extraction and also protect the banks of the said river by placing bank protecting embankmentas required under the laws and why further directions shall not be given upon them to initiate legal measures against the illegal and unscrupulous sand traders and to realize compensation from them for causing damages to the river and the villagers of the said village. Furthermore, an order of injuction was passed restraining further extraction of sands or cutting of the river banks. Rule returnable within 4 weeks. Later on 8 October 2009, the order of injunction was extended till disposal of the Rule. 80. BELA v. Bangladesh and Others Writ Petition No. 4399 of 2009 (Jugi tila) The petition was filed seeking directions upon the respondents to prevent illegal and indiscriminate cutting of a hill known as Jugi Tila measuring 0.92 acre in the Ambarkhana mouza specifically dag No. 932, Khatian No. 230 under JL No. 92 under the Sylhet City Corporation, Sylhet attributing to ecological imbalance and degradation of environment of the City of Sylhet. The Honourable High Court on 29.06.09 issued a rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why they shall not be declared to have failed to protect the indiscriminate and unlawful cutting or dressing of the Jugi tila under the Sylhet City Corporation, Sylhet attributing to the ecological imbalance and degradation to the environment of the City of Sylhet. An order of injunction was passed restraining respondent No. 11 (Md. Abdul Awal) from cutting or dressing of the said tila for a period of 3 months. Rule returnable within 4 weeks from date. On 27.9.2009, the order of injunction was further extended for an additional period of 3 months from the date of
37

expiry. Furthermore, on 3.1.2010, the order of injunction was further granted till disposal of the case. 81. BELA and Others v. Bangladesh and Others Writ Petition No. 8483 of 2009 (Aila affected areas as distressed areas) The petition sought directions upon the respondents to declare the Aila affected areas as Distress Area, repair/reconstruct the damaged embankments of the said Areas and provide the displaced persons of the said areas with necessary supports till the time they can be enabled to return to their homes and engage into normal economic activities. On 4.1.2010, the Honourable High Court passed an interim order directing the respondents to provide with winter cloth to the people affected by Aila as early as possible. 82. BELA v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 57 of 2010 (Shrimp cultivation) The petition was filed in December 2009 seeking directions upon government to prevent saline water commercial shrimp cultivation in the agricultural lands and forest lands of the coastal districts and ensure no such cultivation takes place without satisfying Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and environmental clearance requirement. On 10.1.2010, the Honourable High Court issued a rule nisi calling upon respondents to show cause as to why the saline water shrimp cultivation in the agricultural and forest lands, being violative of the provisions of the applicable laws and constitutional/fundamental rights of the people of the coastal districts as guaranteed under Article 31, 32, 40 and 42 if the Constitution shall not be declared unlawful against national and public interest and why they shall not be directed to stop saline water cultivation in the public water bodies of the coastal districts and subjects all shrimp projects to stringent environmental tests. The Rule is made returnable within 2 (two) weeks from date.

83. BELA v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No.4039of 2010 (LalDeeghi, Chittagong) The writ petition (No.4039/2010) was filed by BELA against illegal filling up of historical Landighi, a public water body of Chittagong by CCC Authorities. On 18 May, 2010, the Honourable High Court issued a rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the earth filling into Landighi to turn into a swimming pool should not be declared illegal and also direction upon to the concerned authorities to restore it to its original position and ensure its preservation and proper maintenance. An order of injunction was passed restraining respondent No. 1 from any further earth filing for construction or physical intervention in the said Dighi situated under ward 32, Mouja Andorkilla, P.S.-Kotowali, Chittagong in daag No. 3165, JL No.11 of B.S. Khatian No. 7. 84. BELA v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No 4919/2010 (Nimtoli-Fire, Dhaka) The writ petition (No-4919/2010) was filed jointly by BELA, ASK, BLAST, BRAC and IAB on 10 June, 2010 against the failure of the concerned authorities to prepare adequately and effectively for preventing and fighting against fire break outs in the City and to ensure safety of the inhabitants of the township and prevent unauthorized expansion of hazardous industrial activities in the City particularly in the high density township of the Old Dhaka.

38

85.BELA v.Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No.6072/2010(housing)

A division bench of the High Court Division comprising Mr. Justice Wahab Miah and Mr. Justice Kazi Rezaul Hoque has directed the government to take effective measures for preventing the advertisements of and earth filling and selling plots in the unauthorized private housing projects. The direction came in a Writ Petition filed by five environmental and urban planning groups including Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA), Ain O Salish Kendro (ASK), Bangladesh Poribesh Andolon (BAPA), Institute of Architects Bangladesh (IAB) and Poribesh Bachaon Andolon (POBA). 86. BELA v. Bangladesh and others
Writ Petition No. 4218 of 2010 (Nabinagar Khal of Brahmanbaria)

The petition was filed for directions upon the respondents to protect the Nobinagar khal, a public water body, measuring 1 acre and 13 decimal of land situated in daag No. 432 and khatian No. 1 under ward No. 5 of Nabinagar Pouroshava, Mouja Aliabad, Upazila-Nabinagar, Brahmanbaria from unlawful earth filling by respondent No. 12 (Mr. Md. Abdur Rahman of Majhikara village) for construction of a Road thereon in total disregard to the laws of the country and completely denying the public use of the same and also to restore the Khal to its original position. On 24 April, 2010 the Honourable High Court issued a Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the filling up of the Nabinagar khal by respondent No. 12 for construction of a road thereon being violative of all applicable laws and rules shall not be declared illegal, without lawful authority and against public interest and why the respondents shall not be directed to ensure removal by respondent No. 12 of the earth already dumped by him so as to restore the khal and its flow to original position. Pending hearing of the Rule, the Court passed an interim order of injunction restraining respondent No. 12 from any further filling up of the said khal.
87. BELA v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 2393of 2010 (Ramnabad river of Barisal)

The petition was filed for a direction to restore river area of the Ramnabad river of Patuakhali district under Barisal division in its original position by removing the earth filled and the wall erected by respondent No. 5 (Mr. Golam Mawla Rony, Honble MP, 113, Patuakhali-3 (GalachipaDashmina), for constructing stadium, childrens park and market thereon. On 5 April, 2010 the Honourable High Court issued a Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the filling up of the river area of the Ramnabad river and the erecting of the wall thereon by respondent No. 5 shall not be declared to be illegal, without any lawful authority and against public interest and why the respondents shall not be directed to restore the river area in the original position and and or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper. Pending hearing of the Rule, the respondent No.5 is restrained by an order of injunction from procedding with any further action of land filling or construction or in any way changing the nature and character of the river area of the Ramnabad river of Galalchipa Upazila pf Patuakhali District under barisal Division for a period of 3 (three) months. The Rule is made returnable within 4 (four) weeks from date.
88. BELA, Joyenshahi Adivashi Unnayan Parishad and Jatiya Adhibasi Parishad v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No.1834 of 2010 (Salban, Modhupur)

The petition was filed for Protecting and regenerating the natural Sal Forest of Modhupur and directing settlement of the longstanding uncertainty over the land and forest rights of the Garo
39

(Mandis) who are indigenous dwellers of the forest. On 16 March, 2010, the Honourable High Court issued a rule nisi calling upon respondents to show cause as to why the memo No. 211(4) dated 11. 04.1983 issued by respondent Nos. 6 & 7 respectively are the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Rev), Tangail and Upazilla Revenue Officer, Modhupur, Tangail in contravention of the provisions of the Forest Act, 1927 should not be declared to have been made without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and as to why they should not be directed toi. Correctly identify the borders of the Modhupur Sal Forest as per the notifications dated 2 February, 1956 and 19 July, 1984 and records of the reserve; ii. frame rules on village forestry as required under section: 28 of the Forest Act, 1927 and ensure regeneration of the Modhupur Sal Forest through protection and enrichment plantation with indigenous species and with direct participation of the forest dependent people as envisaged in section 28 of the Forest Act, 1927; iii. settle the rights of the members of the Garo and Kontch community who are indigenous forest dwellers of the Modhupur Sal Forest in accordance with sections 92 of the SAT and following sections 6-19 of the Forest Act, 1927; iv. remove all unauthorized and illegal industrial/commercial entities from the Modhupur Sal forest; iv. stop commercial banana/pineapple plantation (without affecting the traditional cultivation of the tribal people) and other commercial plantations in the Modhupur Sal forest; v. in the case of areas covered under social forestry agreements, undertake appropriate measures to gradually regenerate native forest in the said areas after the expiry of the existing agreements and or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper; The Rule is made returnable within 4 (four) weeks from date. 89. BELA vs. Bangladesh and others
Writ Petition No.8265 of 2010 (sand extraction from Meghna at Bancharampur)

The petition was filed against unlawful extraction of sands from the char land of the river

Meghna, particularly in the Baherchar and Kanainagar moujas of Bahnchharampur Upazila of Brahmanbaria district.
.

40