Bangladesh

Cases

 * Farooque v. Bangladesh
 * Dr. Mohiuddin Vs. Bangladesh and others

Relevant Citation: Writ Petition No. 92 of 1996; 1996 BLD 490; 48 DLR (1996) 438

In this case, the main contention was whether an alleged contaminated imported milk powder endangered or may endanger the life of the people living in the country and thus violated the fundamental right of right to life. While interpreting Articles - 31 and 32, which ensured protection of Life, the court was of the opinion that the right to life included protection of health and normal longevity of a man free from threats of man-made hazards unless that threat is sanctioned by law. The court stated that the right to life is extended to the enjoyment of pollution-free water and air. In reference to the Indian case of Subash Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar reported in MANU/SC/0106/1991: AIR 1991 SC 420, the court held that if anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has the right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life.


 * Dr. Mohiuddin Vs. Bangladesh and others and Sekandar Ali Mondal Vs. Bangladesh and others

Relevant Citation: Writ Petition No. 998 of 1994 with Writ Petition No. 1576 of 1994; 1998 BLD 216; 50 DLR (1998) 84

In this particular case, the activities and implementation of FAP-20, a project undertaken in the District of Tangail was questioned. It was alleged that the Flood Control Plan will have environmental ill, with around 3 lacs of people likely to be adversely affected and uprooted within the project area and the extent of adverse impact outside the project area may encompass more than a million human lives, property, livelihood, their environmental security, the natural resources and natural habitats of men and other flora and fauna. It was submitted that the project will cause damage to soil, destruction of natural habitat, fishes, flora and fauna and create drainage problems threatening human health and worsen sanitation and drinking water supplies and cause environmental hazards and ecological imbalance. It was contended that the affected people were not afforded any opportunity of being heard and the objections and protests raised by the people were ignored by the respondents who were duty-bound to take into consideration the fate of the people, directly, indirectly, and casually affected by the implementation of FAP-20. Such action was in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 31, 32, 40, and 42 of the constitution and also contradicted the National Environment Policy, 1992; which stated that in the context of environment, the Government recognizes that the active participation of all the people at all level is essential. Although the court was of the opinion that in its present stage, it was not practical to stop the work, it was of the contention that in implementing the project, the state cannot violate the provisions of laws of the land. The court ordered that the project be carried complying all the requirements of laws of the land and gave some directions to the state, among which, one was to ensure that no serious damage to the environment and ecology is caused by the project activities.


 * Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Irrigation, Water Resources and Flood Control and others

Relevant Citation: Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1995; 49 DLR (AD) (1997) 1

The main issue of dispute, in this case, was whether BELA, an organization, concerned with the protection of the people of the country from the ill-effects of environmental hazards and ecological imbalance had locus standi in questioning the legality of the activities of FAP, FAP-20, and the FPCO, on the grounds that activities would adversely affect more than a million human lives and natural resources and the natural habitat of man and other flora and fauna and that they are allegedly anti-environment and anti-people project. The court declared that in the context of engaging concern for the conservation of the environment, a national organization like BELA, which claims to have studied and conducted research on the disputed project, can and should be attributed a threshold standing as having sufficient interest in the matter, and thereby regarded as a person aggrieved to maintain the writ petition. The court further stated that the right to life contained within its scope the protection and preservation of the environment, ecological balance free from pollution of air and water, sanitation without which life can hardly be enjoyed. In reference to Justice Douglas’s minority opinion in Sierra Club vs. Morton, 401 US 907 (1971) (No.70-34), the court was of the opinion that “contemporary public concern for protecting nature's ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation.” Dr. Farooque, the Secretary-General of BELA, submitted that the beneficiaries of the writ petition were not the members of BELA itself but the people in general, including the generation yet to be born for whom the present generation holds the environment as an inter-generational trust, as every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve the rhythm and harmony that their inherited environment bequeathed to them. Thus BELA invoked the principle of Inter-generational Justice, in order to establish their locus standi.


 * Mahbubul Anam and Ors. Vs. Ministry of Land

Relevant Citation: Civil Review Petition Nos. 305-306, 315-316, 320 of 2015 and C.P. No. 2367 of 2010; 72 DLR(AD) (2020) 239

The main issue of the dispute was regarding a memo dated issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Cox's Bazar cancelling long term leases of lands in Hotel/Motel Zone of Cox's Bazar. A writ petition was filed against the memo

The writ-petitioners were granted a long-term lease of various quanta of land in the Hotel/Motel Zone of Cox's Bazar by the proper authority for the purpose of constructing 1-5 star hotels and motels. They paid the entire consideration money in installments and were handed over possession of the lands and they have also mutated those lands in their respective names. As per terms of the lease deed, the writ-petitioners started construction work also in their leasehold land after obtaining clearance from various authorities and invested big amounts of money for construction. But all of a sudden, the Deputy Commissioner, Cox's Bazar, without serving any show-cause notice, issued a memo canceling the permanent lease of the said plots in favour of the writ-petitioners directing the writ-petitioners to hand over possession of those plots in favour of the Government. The writ-respondent argued that the construction of Hotel/Motel in that area is totally illegal, as the Government issued a Gazette Notification on 19.04.1999 declaring the area in question as Ecologically Critical Area (ECA) and also prohibiting any change of the nature of the land and water of that area, in order to protect the environment and the ecosystem of the largest sea beach area of Cox's Bazar and construction of such Hotel/Motel will frustrate the purpose of that Gazette Notification. The High Court Division, after hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, discharged the Rules Nisi giving directions, one of which was to return the lease money to the lessees. The civil petitions for leave to appeal by the writ-petitioners were further dismissed by the Appellate Division. The petitioners then filed the instant civil review petitions.

Although initially the leases/allotments were canceled due to breach in terms and conditions of the lease, and the respondents in their affidavits-in-opposition substantiated their action in canceling the leases by pointing to the alleged breaches, the submissions of the Attorney General before the High Court Division emphasized on the preservation of ecological balance in the environment and protection of natural resources. Thus, the case concerned the protection of natural resources for the benefit of the public, rather than mere breaches of the lease. The Attorney General even submitted that the Government’s grant of leases was made without taking notice of the Notification dated 19.04.1999 declaring the Cox's Bazar Sea Beach as Ecologically Critical Area under section 5 of the Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act 1995. The court noted that Cox's Bazar to Teknaf, the longest natural sand beach in the world, is a bounty bestowed upon by the Almighty Creator. And thus, it is incumbent to protect and preserve this national asset which brings benefits for the economy and also to leave a heritage for future generations. The court was of the opinion that there was no ambiguity regarding the Notification that it included the disputed area in the ECA and that such was done to protect the natural and ecological balance of the areas in question. The court further stated that they hope that the Government will adhere to the policy of preservation of the ecological balance and protection of the natural resources of the country not only for the future generations but also to ensure the protection of the environment from degradation and the harmful effects of climate change.

Therefore, the court directed that all leases granted within the area under dispute after 19.04.1999 be canceled in the same way as those of the writ-petitioners and any constructions made thereon be demolished and compensation be paid to the leaseholders for such losses. The court further directed that no lease shall be further granted within any area which has been classified as an ecologically critical area.


 * K.M. Asadul Bari Vs. Bangladesh and Others

Relevant Citation: Writ Petition No. 584 of 2002; 22 BLD (2002) 129

In this case, the main issue was whether the use of polythene bag causes pollution within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Environment Conservation Act 1995 and the action of the Director-General of the Department of Environment in imposing the ban on the use of polythene bags violates the Section 4 of the Environment Conservation Actor not. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh held that the use of polythene bags causes pollution under Section 2(b) of the Environment Conservation Act. The Court further observed that Section 4 (1) of the Environment Conservation Act 1995 empowers the Director-General to take any action deemed necessary for the purpose of control and improvement of the environment. The Court held that Section 4 (4) contained a clause whereby the Director-General can take any actions for closure, control, or ban of the production of anything which might cause pollution. The Director-General needs to serve a show-cause notice to the concerned authority prior to conducting such action however, the Director-General may take any necessary measures immediately with regard to any danger of causing damage to public life.

The Court held that that the activities conducted by the Director-General was in accordance with Section 4(4) and prior to banning the use of polythene bags, there was large-scale publicity made in newspapers, all electronic media and so forth and subsequently, dismissed the contention of the petitioners of the sudden ban on the use of polythene bags violates Section 4 of the Environment Conservation Act.


 * City Sugar Industries Ltd. and others Vs. Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh & others

Relevant Citation: Civil Petition for leave to appeal No. 761, 767-769, 772-773 and 781 of 2010; 62 DLR(AD) (2010) 428

The petitioner of the case is City Sugar Industries Ltd., one of the largest sugar refinery units in Bangladesh under City Group. The respondent of the case is Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB), a non-profitable organization that aims to uphold the rights of the citizens of the country and work for the protection of the environment by taking legal steps against the activities of destroying the environment as well as violating the law.

The issue of the case was regarding whether the Writ petitioners constructed structures on several rivers at different locations illegally and public interest lies in protecting rivers from encroachments and pollutants by all means, and the present petition for leave to appeal directed against the order passed by High Court Division needs interference.

The petitioners of the case, by invoking Article 102 of the Constitution as a PIL (Public interest litigation), sought direction upon the respondents to stop and remove illegal encroachment, earth filling, and temporary and permanent structures building on the River Buriganga, Turag at Dhaka and on the River Shitalakkha at Narayanganj which were built violating the provisions of the Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act 1995 (amended in 2000 and 2002), and Megacity, Divisional Town and District Town’s municipal areas including the country's all municipal areas’ playground, open space, park and natural water reservoir Conservation Act, 2000. While interpreting section 5, 8 of Megacity, Divisional Town and District Town’s municipal areas including the country's all municipal areas’ playground, open space, park and natural water reservoir Conservation Act, 2000 and section 7 of Environment Conservation Act, 1995, it was stated that the activities of the respondents not only violated the law but also affected the environment and the normal movement of the water of the aforementioned rivers was obstructed. In addition to that, the rivers serve as top sources of water for millions of citizens residing in Dhaka and Narayanganj city, as well as a route for river-based transportations. Thus, it involves great public importance and the Writ respondents are legally bound to protect the rivers in accordance with the law. It was held by the court that the authority found that petitioners constructed structures on the rivers illegally and the same was ascertained in a survey of rivers as held as per direction of High Court Division given in another Writ Petition, as well as that, the public interest lies in protecting rivers from encroachments and pollution by all means. Therefore, no interference was called for and the petition was dismissed.


 * Ain-O-Salish Kendro (ASK) Vs. Bangladesh

Relevant Citation: Writ Petition No. 8098 of 2013

The petitioner of the case is Ain-O-Shalish Kendro (ASK), a national legal aid and human rights organisation in Bangladesh which provides legal and social support to the dis-empowered, women, children and workers.

The issue of the case was regarding whether there was necessity to issue direction to protect vast tract of forest cover of a relevant district (Baraku and Parabartha mauza, Kaliganj Thana) being transformed into residential plots of a new town project that would impair environmental balance, ecosystem and biodiversity of that area.

The petitioners submitted that the writ petition was not intended to barge in the project of Purbachal New Town, rather to exclude the two mauza of Gazipur part of Purbachal housing project, namely, Barakau and Parabartha, for the reason that a considerable part of the two mauza is covered by dense shaal forest (locally known as Gazaigarh), orchard, medicinal plants and water bodies and it directly contributes to the environment.

The court observed that the petitioners were curiously uninformed and their effort to protect the environment was ill-timed as the records do not signify that they as organizations working in the environmental area have ever been awake to development of the project on time, neither that they are public spirited persons having interest more than a busybody for protection of environment, or ones having special knowledge in environmental science, or involved in environmental movements. On top of that, the court held that the petitioners have failed to press home their claim of forest expanse and its potential destruction, let alone a prima facie case of environmental degradation on that basis so as to justify interference by the court, thus, their action as PIL was incompetent in the existing context.

Organizations

 * Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Associations (BELA)
 * Bangladesh Environment Network (BEN)
 * Strategy for Environmental Development Foundation (SED Foundation)