Bangladesh

Cases

 * Farooque v. Bangladesh
 * Dr. Mohiuddin Vs. Bangladesh and others
 * Dr. Mohiuddin Vs. Bangladesh and others and Sekandar Ali Mondal Vs. Bangladesh and others
 * Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Irrigation, Water Resources and Flood Control and others
 * Mahbubul Anam and Ors. Vs. Ministry of Land
 * K.M. Asadul Bari Vs. Bangladesh and Others
 * 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)