Public Interest Litigation

View With Charts And Images 

Prepared For
Dr. A.W.M Abdul Huq
Research Supervisor
Final Dissertation
Northern University Bangladesh

Prepared by
Razib Ahamed
ID # LL.B. 040300291
12^th Semester
Northern University, Bangladesh

Date of Submission : 28^th August, 2008
Letter of Transmittal

5^th June 2008
Dr. A.W.M Abdul Huq
Research Supervisor
Final Dissertation
Northern University Bangladesh
93 Kazi Nazrul Islam Avenue, Dhaka-1215

Letter of Transmittal

Sir,
It is a great pleasure for me to submit the research paper on the topic of “An Analysis on Pubic Interest Litigation”. While conducting this research, I tried my level best to make this research paper to the required standard. I hope that this paper will fulfill your expectation.
I, therefore, hope that you would be kind enough to go through this paper for evaluation.
I am always available for any clarification of any part of this research paper at your convenience.

Thanking you.

Razib Ahamed
LL.B (Hon’s)
ID: LLB040200291
Department of Law
Northern University, Bangladesh

Acknowledgement

Firstly I offer millions of heartfelt thanks to almighty God, who has given me strength to complete of this Research Monograph successfully, I would especially like to thank Pro. Dr. A .W. M. Abdul Huq. Dean Faculty of Law, NORTHERN UNIVERSITY, BANGLADESH. I am grateful to my Course Supervisor, Pro. Dr. A .W. M. Abdul Huq who has given proper guideline to complete this work. I am also gratefully indebted to my teacher Md. Mahbubur Rahman who was my honorable course teacher of Administrative law and Syed Sarfarj Hamid sir who not only provided information but also have been a source of inspiration all along this work.

I am greatful to my friends and classmates Pinaki for their assistance and encouragement in writing, proof reading, printing and publishing the research monograph. My special thankfulness to honorable teacher for their precious consultation.

I am grateful to my trusted, reliable and faithful friend Saiful Islam who have assisted in preparing the research by giving company and technical help with inspiration.

I always use the Library and Computer Lab of Northern University to complete my Research. So I express my heartfelt gratitude to all librarians and Lab assistant Salam I also use the Public Library, Library of BELA, BLAST & Ain-O-Shalish Kendra. So I am equally thankful to all their authority & their staff.

Preface

Public interest litigation is one of those rare topics that interest lawyers and non-lawyers alike. Not only in terms of elegance and novelty, this is a topic with a high profile due to its importance, relevance and necessity. It fascinates with the promises it makes, the changes it brings and the style in which it operates. This book is an attempt to capture this fascination – it paints a picture of public interest litigation in Bangladesh.

LIST OF CASES

1.      Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Election Commission & Others WP No.186/1994 (Nuisance during Election Campaign)
2.      Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others WP No.891/1994 (Industrial Pollution Case)
3.      Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others WP No. 1783/1994 (Doctor’s Strike Case)
4.      Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others WP No.300/1995 (Vehicular Pollution Case)
5.      Sharif Nurul Ambia Vs Bangladesh & Others WP No.937/ 1995 (Unlawful Construction)
6.      Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others WP No. 92/1996 (Radiated Milk)
7.  Master Issa N.Farooque & Others Vs Bangladesh and Others WP No.278 of 1996 (Use of Children as Camel Jockey)
8.      Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh and Others CA No 24/1995 (Case on Standing)
9.  Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others (WPNo.998/94)
Sekandar Ali Mondol Vs Bangladesh and Others (WP No.1576/1994)
(Challenging Flood Action Plan-20: Direction for Payment of Compensation)
10. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others WP No. 867/97 (Contaminated Drink)
11. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others  WP No. 948/1997 (Uttara Lake Fill-up)
12. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others WP No. 1252/1997 (Unregulated Operation of Brick Fields)
13.    Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others WP No. 6020/1997 (Hill Cutting Case)
14.    Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others WP No. 6105/1997 (Gas Explosion at Magurchara)
15. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others WP No. 7422/1997 (Gulshan Lake Fill-up)
16.    Nijera Kori Vs Bangladesh & Others WP No. 1162/1998 (Allotment of Land for Shrimp Cultivation)
17.    Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) Vs Bangladesh and others WP No. 2482/1999 (Gulshan Lake Fill-up)
18.    Biplob Kumar Roy Vs Bangladesh and Others WP No. 1840 of 1999 (Unlawful Leasing of Nabaganga River)
19.    Bangladesh Environment Lawyers Association (BELA) Vs Bangladesh and Others WP No. 4098/1999 (Encroachment over Buriganga River)
20.    Contempt Petition No. 33 of 2001 Arising out of Writ Petition No. 4098 of 1999
21.    Khushi Kabir Vs Bangladesh and Others Writ Petition No. 3091 of 2000
22.    Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) Vs Bangladesh and Others Writ Petition No. 1691 of 2001 (PAP Case)
23.    Md. Shahjahan Mondol and others Vs Executive Engineer CPP Division Water Development Board Tangail and Others Civil Revision no. 2873 of 2001
24.    Quazi Faruque, Secretary General CAB Vs Ministry of Shipping and Others  Writ Petition No.631of 2001
25.    Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) Vs Bangladesh & Others (Writ Petition 3336 of 2002) (Filling up of Ashulia)
26.    Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) Vs Bangladesh and Others Writ Petition No. 4685 of 2002 (Protection of Fuldi River from Unlawful Leasing)
27.    Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) Vs Bangladesh and Others Writ Petition No. 1430 of 2003 (Relocation of Tannery)
28.    Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) Vs Bangladesh and Others Writ Petition No. 2911 of 2003   (Ship Breaking to be Regulated by Law)
29.    Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) Vs Bangladesh and Others Writ Petition No. 3475 of 2003 (Protecting Park and Playground of Dhaka City)
30.    Fishery related Cases

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The term ‘public interest litigation¹ (PIL), a new phenomenon in our legal system, is used to describe cases where conscious citizens or organisations approach the court bow fide in public interest.[1]

In Bangladesh, concerned citizens and organisations have challenged illegal detention of an innocent person for 12 years without trial,[2] importation of radio-active milk,[3] environmental damage resulting from defective flood action programme,[4] appointment of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate without prior consultation with the Supreme Court[5] and so on. Within its scope, which is continuously expanding, PIL includes cases involving poverty related problems, police atrocities, illegal detention, environmental and consumer matters, health related problems, rights of children and women, minority affairs and other human rights issues.

This is a significant new development from at least two standpoints. First, the courts are for the first time concerned with public interest matters. This is beyond the traditional role of the judges who previously adjudicated private disputes only. Second, it involves a public law approach with respect to the rules of standing, procedure and remedies so that private citizens can advance public aims through the courts.

What prompted this new advancement and how? What are the meaning, scope and basis of PIL? What is the constitutional position of PIL? What are the new rules of standing, procedure and remedies? The present book is an attempt to answer these questions in the Bangladeshi context.

The basis of legitimacy of the law courts is impartiality. In the Common law based legal systems, including that of Bangladesh, this impartiality is safeguarded through an adversarial model of litigation. Thus the judge is a neutral umpire and is not supposed to intervene while the parties debate their case in front of him. So sacred is this impartial stance that it is believed that ‘bias even for a good cause is bias all the same’.

This system works well in most of the cases as long as they involve private disputes where the strengths of the parties are more or less evenly balanced. But when one of the parties is disproportionately poor and powerless, it becomes very difficult to litigate on equal terms. The disadvantaged party can afford neither the best lawyers nor the other resources available to his adversary. In private interest cases, this is the basis for providing legal aid to The poor The some problem crops un in public interest matters as well, those who are suffering, the people as a whole or a segment of the society, are often poor, ignorant, unorganized or afraid to approach the court. Since indifference and absolute reliance on the adversarial model would cause injustice, social activists advance PIL believing that ‘equal treatment of unequal is inequality’.

The concept and practice of PIL is thus an exception to the general rules of our Common law based legal system. It is not a revolution in the sense that it does not attempt to overthrow the entire existing system. But it is not a mere tinkering with the system either. It brings along with it a new set of principles and procedures that negate the traditional approach when public interest is concerned. Accordingly, the courts act suo motu, liberally interpret the rules of standing, treat letters as writ petitions, appoint commissioners, enlist aid from volunteers, award compensation to the victim and provide for continuous monitoring of the situation. PIL thus is a major reformation at both conceptual and practical levels.

Advancement of PIL in Bangladesh coincided with the restoration of democracy. Some attempts to introduce PIL in Bangladesh started since 1992[6]  Initially, it was difficult to overcome the threshold problem. However, lentless efforts of the social activists enabled the progressive minded judges interpret the Constitution liberally through a series of cases. When success rally came in 1996, the Supreme Court not only found that PIL is valid under is constitutional scheme, but that the Constitution mandates a PIL approach.

CHAPTER TWO
WHAT IS PIL : AN EXAMINATION
There is no confusion as to the general meaning of PIL – that it is litigation in the interest of the public. Yet the more one attempts to be specific about the scope of PIL, the less satisfactory becomes this general description. Terms like litigation’, ‘public¹ or ‘interest’ have different meanings and scope in different situations. Further complications arise when the term ‘public interest’ is the issue. Since the term is culture specific, no single definition can satisfy everyone. Hence the scope of the term depends, to a great extent, on the point of view chosen.

In practice, there has been a compromise of different viewpoints about the scope of PH. The activists and jurists accept the general meaning of PIL and leave the details to the discretion of the individual judge. Thus the scope of PIL in any particular jurisdiction depends more on practical experiences as demonstrated by judicial pronouncements than on any particular theoretical framework.
Yet there are a few general components that help us to determine whether a particular issue is of public interest and whether a particular litigation is PIL. These general components of the meaning and scope of PIL have been discussed in the present chapter, along with a number of associated terms that one can not avoid while attempting to understand PIL.

MEANING OF THE TERM ‘PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION’

While the concept of PEL was just taking shape, Bhagwati J., one of the pioneers of PIL in India, observed in People’s Union of Democratic Rights v. Union of India:
Public interest litigation is essentially a co-operative effort on the part of the petitioner, the State or public authority and the Court to secure observance of the constitutional or legal rights, benefits and privileges conferred upon the vulnerable section of the community and to reach social justice to them.[7]

PIL started to evolve and develop with great speed and the judges extensively applied the concept to different areas. This wider scope of PIL was ensured by defining it from a very broad angle, by describing PIL simply as litigation in the interest of the public.[8] Kirpal J. said in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Ministry of Home Affairs:

As I understand the phrase “Public Interest Litigation”, it means nothing more than what it states namely it is a litigation in the interest of the public. Public interest litigation is not that type of litigation which is meant to satisfy the curiosity of the people, but it is a litigation which is instituted with a desire that the court would be able to give effective relief to the whole or a section of the society.[9]

Like the Indians, Pakistani judges and writers have generally considered PIL as a purpose-oriented idea. PIL is described as a task of the eradication of social evils through the medium of law as is enjoined by the Constitution. Hussain says:

Public interest litigation means what it says namely litigation in the interest of  the public. … it must be emphasised that the raison d’etre of public interest I litigation is to break through the existing legal, technical and procedural constraints and provide justice, particularly social justice to a particular individual, class or community who on account of any personal deficiency or economic or social deprivation or state oppression are prevented from bringing a claim before the Court of law.

PIL may be distinguished from ordinary litigation in the following way, First, PIL is for the benefit of the people as a whole or a segment of the society. It aims to enhance social and collective justice and there must be a public cause involved as opposed to a private cause. This includes several situations:
a.       Where the matter in question affects the entire public or the entire community, e.g. illegal appointment of an unfit person as a government servant;
b.       Where the issue involves a vulnerable segment of the society, e.g. eviction of slum-dwellers without any alternative arrangement;
c.        Where the matter affects one or more individuals but the nature of the act is so gross or serious that it shocks the conscience of the whole community, e.g. rape of a minor girl in police custody.

Second, in the situations mentioned above, any individual or organisation may approach the court. In other words, PIL involves liberalisation of the rules of standing.

This includes cases initiated suo motu; because the judge himself is a concerned citizen in such a case.
Third, the court adopts a non-adversarial approach as opposed to an adversarial system of litigation. This includes procedural aspects as well as the aspects of granting relief. As a result, the court may treat letters as writ petitions, appoint commissioners, award compensation or supervise and monitor the enforcement of its orders.
In short, PIL may be described as a type of litigation where the interest of the public is given priority over all other interests with an aim to ensure social and collective justice, the court being ready to disregard the constraints of the adversary model of litigation. Thus when conscious citizens or organisations, with bonafide intentions, approach the court for the interest of the public in general or a disadvantaged or under-privileged segment of the society and not for any private, vested, special or group interest, it is termed as ‘public interest litigation¹. An injury to the public interest will be apparent only when some constitutional or legal rights, privileges or benefits are affected or where a constitutional or legal duty or obligation has not be performed. PIL becomes a necessity when protection of law is unavailable to the public or a segment of it due to ignorance, poverty, fear or lack of organised endeavor.

One important aspect of PIL is that it entails ‘litigation’ – the process of settling legal disputes in a court of law under appropriate procedures.[10] From a wider viewpoint, it includes cases not only in law courts but also at the instance of quasi-judicial or administrative authority. Yet, PIL being a specific type of litigation and nothing more it excludes legislative activities and other extra-legal means of promoting public interest, e.g. lobbying, negotiation, etc.

As it is a type of litigation, PIL has all the constraints and limitations of the litigation process. However, to promote public interest, the constraints of the litigation process have been liberally construed where PIL is involved.

In general, PIL indicates a petition in public interest in the nature of writ under Article 102 of the Constitution of Bangladesh. Development of PIL in Bangladesh so far has revolved around this constitutional jurisdiction. But PIL is not confined only within the constitutional jurisdiction. There is scope for PIL in Civil and Criminal courts as well as in special courts and tribunals provided that such litigation fulfills the criterion of PIL. Thus for example, Order 1 rule 8 relating to representative suits or section 91 regarding public nuisance of the Civil Procedure Code are relevant. However, the present book is concerned, apart from certain exceptions, with the constitutional aspects of PEL and the civil and criminal law aspects are not within its scope.

The terms ‘public¹ and ‘interest’ are by no means easy to define. When they combine to form the term ‘public interest’ – we have a fertile ground for confusions and competing ideas.

The word ‘public’ literally means pertaining to the people of a country or locality. In other words, “the community as an aggregate, but not in its organised capacity, hence  the members of the community”.[11] The term can be used for either all members of the community or groups of members or any section or class of that community. It is a term of uncertain import and must be limited in every case by the context in which it is used. The term ‘interest’ is a relation of being objectively concerned in something by having a right or title to, a claim upon or a share in that thing. It includes varying aggregates of rights, privileges, powers and immunities. Here also, the word has different implications in different contexts.[12]

When the words ‘public’ and ‘interest’ combine to form the term ‘public interest’, it becomes difficult to define due to a number of factors. The phrase is used in different disciplines including political science, economics and law with different connotations and from different perspectives. It again depends on the user and one’s purpose; from democrats to autocrats everybody uses it. Finally, it also varies from one jurisdiction to another. This confusion has led writers to say that ‘no general agreement exists about whether the term has any meaning at all and that the concept ‘makes no operational sense’[13]

Generally, public interest means a commonality of interest, a single interest that a certain group of people or citizens are presumed to share.[14] Barry and Rees actually extend this still further: The concept of public interest … is a device which permits us to treat the human interests of all men as a function of human interests within a given political region. It has considerable value as a weapon for criticizing selfish private interests or class interests, and its advantages in a highly individualistic and often savagely competitive society are obvious.

Thus, while a special interest furthers the ends of some part of the public, public interest ultimately serves the ends of the whole public.¹⁸ Even in the case of a conflict among different private or special interests, the public interest lies in the best and most just solution of the conflict which ensures that the public as a whole gain a better environment after the conflict is resolved. Thus, for example, it is a matter of public interest to protect minority rights because, although a major portion of the public might lose something, the community as a whole would gain by the progress made in terms of human and fundamental rights.

As to how this commonality of interest might be determined, there is no agreement. It is often supposed that public interest suggests a consensus among the ‘preponderance’ of the people or the dominant portion of the public. Public interest has also been seen as the sum total of all interests in the community balanced for the common good.[15] Some idealists believe that public interest consists of the course of action that is best for society as a whole according to some absolute standard of values regardless of whether any citizens actually desire them. practical purposes, however, the courts have attempted to describe ‘public interest¹ with more certainty. Thus a principle emerged in early English law that a matter of ‘public interest[16] is one in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights 01 liabilities are affected. This principle of common law appears to have been generally followed in the sub-continent including Bangladesh. In a Bangladeshi case, while borrowing from the English jurisdiction, Anwamlj Hoque Chowdhury J. held:

The expression public interest is nowhere defined in the Passport Order. It hast however received judicial interpretation years ago from the courts of English Jurisdiction. In South Hetton Coal Company case, reported in 1894 1 QB at 133 Lord Esher MR while dealing with the question of fair comment in mastiff of public interest observed that when so many people of a particular locality! affected by failure of sanitation, a fair comment is in public interest. Public interest [sicl thus, connotes matter of interest in which a class of community would have pecuniary interest or any other interest by which legal right or liabilities are effected.

This description depicts the traditional and well established attitude ta by the courts both in England and in the sub-continent.

The term ‘public interest’, has some other traditional meanings as well. J often equated   with   national   interest,   national   security   or   even justifiability. It has also been acknowledged that “the expression interest the general  public  embraces public security, public   order  and public morality”

CHAPTER-THREE
CONCEPT OF PIL

THE CONCEPT OF PIL: THEORETICAL APPROACHES
‘Whether PIL is essentially a revolution or a reformation depends on the perspective of the observer rather than on any theoretical paradigm. Yet, being radical development, PIL requires to be justified by its proponents, explained by the activists and understood by the lawyers. As a result, various attempts have been made to theories the concept of PIL.

However, it must be stressed that a single precise ‘theory’ of PIL, accepted by everyone, is neither available nor possible. Instead of a ‘theory of PEL’, the following discussion attempts to follow the patterns of some of the theoretical approaches taken by the proponents of PEL. It needs to be mentioned that our discussion is in no way exhaustive.

CAPPELLETITS ANALYSIS: MASSIFICATION THEORY
PEL has been explained as a consequence of the ‘basification phenomena’ of modern societies. In other words, due to the ever-increasing size, concerns and complexity of modern societies, certain rights can not be attained through traditional means. PIL is one attempt to solve this problem. Thus PIL is considered as a reflection, in the field of law, of the emerging, growing and lasting need of modern societies.

In 1978, Appellate advanced the so-called ‘basification theory’[17] He used comparative analysis and assumed that some basic socio-economic and political needs are shared by all advanced societies and on this premise he examined the legal answers given to those common needs.

According to Cappelletti, our contemporary society or more ambitiously, our civilisation, may be characterised as a mass-production mass-consumption civilisation. But this massification extends far beyond the economic sector and embraces all spheres of our lives, including the field of law. Cappelletti says:

More and more frequently, because of the “massification” phenomena,! human actions and relationships assume a collective, rather than a merely individual character; they refer to groups, categories and classes of people, rather than to one or a few individuals alone. Even basic rights and duties are no longer exclusively the individual rights and duties of the 18^th or 19^th century declarations of human rights inspired by natural law concepts, but rather meta-individual, collective, “social” rights and duties of associations, communities and classes. This is not to say that individual rights no longer] have a vital place in our societies; rather, it is to suggest that these rights are practically meaningless in today’s setting unless accompanied by the social rights necessary to make them effective and really accessible to all.

Cappelletti says that the complexity of modern societies generates! situations in which a single action can be beneficial or prejudicial to a large number of people. This makes the traditional scheme of litigation as a two party affair quite inadequate because an individual alone is unable to protect himself efficiently in these cases. His interest is either too small, so that a I legal action would not pay, or too diffuse, so that his rights are denied by the court or he may even be unaware of his rights. To protect his new social, collective and diffuse rights, therefore, it is necessary to abandon the individualistic traditional approach. New social, collective, diffuse remedies and procedures are required. The quest for these new remedies and procedures is responsible, among other things, for the development of¹ public interest law  and PIL.

SOCIAL ACTIVISM FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
Of all the perspectives from which PIL has been examined, the social justice preach, accompanied with social activism, is perhaps the most significant me for the sub-continental proponents of PIL. The social responsibility of the citizens, including the legal professionals, which stems out of their social consciousness, is considered to be responsible for the development and success of PIL.

Although the promoters of PIL in Pakistan shared the notion of social consciousness with their Indian counterparts, one distinguishing element was apparent from the very beginning – the emphasis on Islam. In Pakistan, Mamisation has its roots in the very creation of the State. However, effective Islamisation of the laws of Pakistan started in the late 1970s. Social justice, as promoted by the Pakistani judges, is Islamic social justice. While introducing PIL, as they were under the Islamisation process, a most important issue for the pioneering judges was whether PIL conforms with Islamic principles. They established this conformity and proceeded further by showing that the inspiration and rationale of PIL can be drawn from Islam itself.[18]

The social activism advocated by the sub-continental activists proceeded with the assumption that judges are law makers, insisting that traditional view that they merely interpret the law is fundamentally wrong.[19] Baxi observed that while the elaboration of certain values in the Constitution demands and fresh challenges to their legitimacy. The scope for judicial law-making widens when the legislature and the executive fail to perform their socio-economic functions. He further said:

In other words, an activist judge will consider herself perfectly justified in resorting to lawmaking power when the legislature just doesn’t bother to legislate. … in almost all countries of the Third World such judicial initiatives are both necessary and desirable. It appears that from the viewpoint of a social activist, the assists the process of legitimisation of the ruling elite, at the same time, it tends to expose them to new

CHAPTER-FOUR
BACK GROUND & DEVELOPMENT OF PIL
A scrutiny of PIL in various jurisdictions demonstrates a very interesting pattern. PIL first emerges as a result of expressions of social commitment of conscious individuals. Then it faces an initial period of recognition problem. Eventually, it breaks down the traditional constrains. Once successful, it is treated as a major development and becomes a permanent feature of the legal system. Finally, this success in its part inspires other jurisdictions to follow the same route. PIL thus travels from one jurisdiction to another.

However, development of PIL is closely dependent on the constitutional culture and historical experience of the people. Therefore, its history in each jurisdiction is unique. The present chapter outlines the development of PIL in USA, England, India and Pakistan. These have immensely influenced the Bangladeshi developments, which will be examined in the next chapter.

EMERGENCE OF PUBLIC INTEREST LAW IN AMERICA
The term PIL, as it is now known, and the associated term ‘public interest law¹, were first coined  in  the  United   States.   While  arrogant  capitalism   and   excessive individualism often typifies the American society, there is also a strong tranquil current of collectivism and social mindedness. This concern for the society has brought many changes during this century. In the legal field, it has brought new techniques, mechanisms, approaches and procedures in favour of the collective interest. Public interest law includes a number of these developments including legal aid, research, formation of public opinion, lobbying and litigation conducted by specialized lawyers and organizations. PIL, litigation in the interest of the public, is thus only one of the various methods of the greater movement of public interest law.

Roots
There are a number of movements that may be identified as the roots of public interest law and have shaped its ‘patterns of organization, modes of financing and choices of strategies’[20]

The first major root of public interest law may be traced to the legal aid movement that started during the 1870s.[21] Legal aid movement brought two new features to the established system. One is that pro bono work became institutionalized. The other is that it reflected not an individual lawyer’s concern but the concern of the community that was often subsidized by a third party benefactor. By the first half of the century, legal aid became a regular and established feature. Public interest lawyers borrowed the organizational form of legal aid firms. On the one hand, there was commitment and enthusiasm to serve the people. On the other hand, they were professionals with independent offices, salaried staff and full time devotion.

The second root of public interest law lies in the works of the Progressive Era Reformers. At the turn of the twentieth century, during the time of rapid industrialization and social and political changes, a movement aimed to check the evils of unregulated business enterprises achieved remarkable success. New legislation aimed to protect the workers and consumers and monitoring institutions like the Federal Trade Commission came up to defend collective rights.

Progressive Era Reform helped to advance the philosophical basis of public interest law as it proceeded with the assumption that the Government should intervene in the economic life of the society so that the market does not operate in a way injurious to public welfare. Another contribution of the progressive legacy is that it focused on the self-realization of the lawyers; their commitment and obligation to the society.[22]

The third root directly antecedent of public interest law is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its offshoot the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense and Education Fund (NAACP/LDF). ACLU was founded during the World War I and was mainly a citizens’ lobbying group. It worked to protect the democratic rights of the citizens including rights to free speech and due process. With the help of a network of volunteer lawyers, ACLU acted as a watchdog of governmental corruption and abuse of power.

Expansion
In American history, the 1960s and 1970s were people’s decades. It was a time when Post World War II technological advancements tended to dehumanize the society and Cold War/ Vietnam issue galvanized conservatism. At the same time, however, social movements reached to astonishing peaks. Socially conscious activist individuals and organisations proceeded to advance the causes of unrepresented constituencies like the poor and the helpless, consumers, minorities, women and sought to eliminate a plethora of discrimination and inequality. While so doing, they found the mechanisms of public interest law, especially PIL, as one of their main tools.

Support came from several quarters. First, charitable organisations, often in the form of private foundations, came forward offering financial assistance to the PIL lawyers. Contribution from organisations such as Sierra.

Club Legal Defense Fund and the Ford Foundations was crucial in the expansion of public interest law.[23]

Second, the Federal Government took an increasingly liberal view that was, to a considerable extent, the result of successful PIL cases. Consequently, government funded legal aid organisations were given more support and financial assistance; new laws relating to social and civil justice were passed; administration became more open to the citizens with respect to its decision making process; and public interest law firms were recognised as tax-exempt charitable organisations.

Third, the private bar and the law schools began to stress on pro bono activities. Young bright lawyers often voluntarily ignored the lure of commercial law firms. Lawyers found involvement in PIL cases a good way of discharging their social responsibilities.

Eventually, due to gradual progress throughout the late 1960s and 1970s, public interest law and PIL became a part of the American legal system. By 1985, Fred Stressed could declare:

Fifteen years after the new generation of public interest law was born, the turbulent practice has survived to become a permanent fixture on the American legal landscape.

DETERMINING PUBLIC INTEREST IN A PIL CASE
In PIL, the litigation must involve some clearly ascertainable public interest which is given due recognition and conscious preference with an aim to ensure collective justice. Apparently, three stages are involved in an ideal case:
a.         Public interest is given priority over special interests, private interests, group interests and vested interests. In other words, in a free competition of interests of different kinds, the interest of the public prevails;¹¹
b.         It is the judge who decides what is public interest by exercising his discretion.This thus is predominantly a matter of fact and is decided in a case to case basis;
c.         The discretion of the judge is exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or whimsically.It may appear that ‘public interest’ is a vague and fluid concept, the meaning of which changes from time to time depending on the problem at hand. Accusations of vagueness, however, may be countered in several ways.

First, in most cases, we instantly know whether a matter involves public interest or not when we encounter it. Nobody needs special legal training to I appreciate that unhindered importation and distribution of radio-active milk is against public interest. In other words, in a good case, it is almost automatic that the element of public interest is recognised and appreciated.

Second, there is a whole body of PIL case laws already accumulated in India and Pakistan. We must also add the growing number of Bangladeshi cases to the list. We now have a considerable number of decided cases which the judges can follow in determining public interest elements in similar situations.

Third, evidence of public awareness and reaction, especially through popular protests and newspaper reports, is a good indication for the judge that the matter at hand is one of public interest. However, a matter would not be a case of public interest merely because the public are interested in it.

Fourth, the court may also lay down its own guidelines for entertaining PL cases.²⁸ In India, the High Courts constituted PIL cells back in the 1980s to deal with PIL by distinguishing the good cases from the bad ones before the process of admission. In fact, rigidly specifying acts and issues as public interest matters would actually hamper the interest of the public, stifling the future growth of PL Public interest can be properly served only if there is a level of elasticity in the concept so that it can change its shape to meet the demands of time and social changes without rigors.

The concept of public interest litigation as has emerged into the judicial administration of Bangladesh is yet to mature with the concept of justice as 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 at its nascent stage.

In recent times the civil society movement for enjoyment of rights took a new dimension with the judiciary being increasingly occupied with public interest cases seeking relief against administrative anarchy and ignorance. It is interesting to note that the concept of PIL is developing in Bangladesh as a performance of public duty by civil society groups advocating in support of progressive ideologies. In 1994 a petition was first taken before the High Court by BELA on behalf of the people of a given 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 positively responded by the Supreme Court this case 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 following cases noted below:

This is not an exhaustive list of the cases filed by BELA 
1. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Election Commission & Others WP 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 Hon’ble 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 Vs Bangladesh & Others WP 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 7^th 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 7^th 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 Hon’ble 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 Vs Bangladesh & Others WP 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 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 Vs Bangladesh & Others WP 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.

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.  Sharif Nurul Ambia Vs Bangladesh & Others WP 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.
6.Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others WP 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 was given a broader meaning. Right to environment was expressly recognised as being included in “right to life”.

7.  Master Issa N.Farooque & Others Vs Bangladesh and Others WP 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 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. There has been recent development, please find it???

8.  Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh and Others CA 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.

9.  Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others (WPNo.998/94)
Sekandar Ali Mondol Vs Bangladesh and Others (WP No.1576/1994)
(Challenging Flood Action Plan-20: Direction for Payment of Compensation)
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.”

10. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others WP 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, 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.

11. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others  WP 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.
The matter is pending hearing.
12. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others WP No. 1252/1997 (Unregulated Operation of Brick Fields)
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 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.
13. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others WP 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.
14. 14. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others WP 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 applications, the petition is pending for hearing.
15. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others WP No. 7422/1997 (Gulshan Lake Fill-up)
A division bench of the High Court Division issued a Rule in the last environmental 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.
16.  Nijera Kori Vs Bangladesh & Others WP 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.
17.  Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) Vs Bangladesh and others WP No. 2482/1999 (Gulshan Lake Fill-up)
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:
18.  Biplob Kumar Roy Vs Bangladesh and Others WP No. 1840 of 1999 (Unlawful Leasing of 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, 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.

19.  Bangladesh Environment Lawyers Association (BELA) Vs Bangladesh and Others
WP No. 4098/1999 (Encroachment over Buriganga River)

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 Hon’ble 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 Honorable 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 Honorable Court and service of the notices the Respondent failed to comply with the direction of Honorable 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 8^th April, 2001.
With filing of subsequent applications, the matter is now pending for hearing.

20.  Contempt Petition No. 33 of 2001 Arising out of Writ Petition No. 4098 of 1999

One contempt petition has been filed before the Hon’ble High Court Division to willful 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.

21. Khushi Kabir Vs Bangladesh and Others Writ Petition No. 3091 of 2000
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 Hon’ble 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 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 cultivation that would create environmental problems.

22. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) Vs Bangladesh and Others Writ Petition No. 1691 of 2001 (PAP 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 (President’s 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 Hon’ble Court.
This matter is pending for hearing.

23. Md. Shahjahan Mondol and others Vs Executive Engineer CPP Division Water Development Board Tangail and Others Civil Revision no. 2873 of 2001

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 Sub-Ordinate Judge Arthorin Adalat Tangail in miscellaneous appeal no. 78 of 1999 setting aside the order maintaining a status que 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

24. Quazi Faruque, Secretary General CAB Vs Ministry of Shipping and Others
Writ Petition No.631of 2001

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 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 Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (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.

25. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) Vs Bangladesh & Others (Writ Petition 3336 of 2002) (Filling up of Ashulia)

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 Hon’ble High Court has given the direction on 13^th 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.

Upon hearing the petition, the Hon’ble 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

26. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) Vs 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 Hon’ble 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

27. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) Vs Bangladesh and Others
Writ Petition No. 1430 of 2003 (Relocation of Tannery)

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.
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
28. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) Vs 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 19^th of April, 2003 before the Honb’le 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

29. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) Vs Bangladesh and Others
Writ Petition No. 3475 of 2003 (Protecting Park and Playground of Dhaka City)
A petition was moved on 11 May, 2003 before the High Court Division by Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (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.

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

30. 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, B’Baria 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:

j. Title suit no. 66 of 2002.
In these cases BELA is representing the interest of the community in supporting the case of defendants who are partner NGOs of CBFM. Out of these cases, BELA has already won two while the rest are pending.
31. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) Vs Ministry of Land and Others
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’.

The petition of BELA made the Secretaries, Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF) and Ministry of Land, the Chief Conservator of Forest, the Deputy Commissioner, Cox’s Bazar, the Divisional Forest Officer, Cox’s 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. BELA’s 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
Conclusion
Over the years, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has emerged as an effective tool for seeking judicial responses and subsequent government actions to the socio-economic challenges of the unorganised, powerless and those segments of the society who are precluded from resorting to legal redress owing to resource or knowledge constraints. PIL has enabled public-spirited individuals, groups and conscious citizens to litigate in the interest of the poor and disadvantaged; and widened the scope for NGOs and civil society to participate in formulation of pro-people policies and laws.

A PIL (a petition brought before the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh in the nature of writ under Article 102 of the Constitution) is generally instituted for the enforcement of the constitutional and legal rights of the poor and excluded groups as well as ensuring accountability of concerned government and public authorities towards issues of public importance. Persistent efforts by NGOs and social action groups through PIL has, in many occasions, prompted the High Court Division to issue directives and orders that in turn addressed the socio-economic concerns of the poor and the marginalized groups.