Staff Reporter :
The Supreme Court on Sunday gave six months time to Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association to demolish its building constructed illegally in Dhaka’s Begunbari canal and Hatirjheel Lake.
A three-member bench of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha passed the order after hearing a petition filed by BGMEA on March 8 seeking three years time for shifting the offices from the building.
The Supreme Court on March 5 dismissed a petition seeking review of its judgment that upheld a High Court verdict, delivered in April 2011, for demolishing the 15 storied BGMEA building.
That day the apex court asked the BGMEA authorities to submit an application in the Appellate Division seeking time for demolishing the building by March 9. BGMEA sought three years time for shifting the offices from the building. But the court granted six months time.
A four-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha rejected the appeal petition filed by the BGMEA on June 2, 2016.
The apex court on November 8 last year released the full text of its verdict in which it upheld the High Court judgment that ordered BGMEA to immediately demolish, at its own cost, the 15 storied building constructed illegally in the Begunbari canal and Hatirjheel Lake.
Otherwise, Rajuk will do it within 90 days of receiving the order and realise the cost from BGMEA, it said.
On Dec, 2016, President of the BGMEA filed a petition seeking review of the Supreme Court judgment.
On April 3, 2011, the High Court verdict ordered the government to demolish the building within three months, saying it was built on land acquired through forgery and filled with earth illegally. According to the documents of the case, an English daily published a report on the BGMEA building on October 2, 2010 saying that the building was built without permission of the Rajuk.
Later, a Supreme Court lawyer brought the report to the attention of a High Court bench. On October 3, 2010, the High Court issued a rule as Suo Moto about the building.
On April 3 in 2011, the High Court bench of Justice A H M Shamsuddin Chowdhury and Justice Sheikh Md Zakir Hossain declared construction of the BGMEA building illegal.
The Chamber Judge of the Appellate Division on April 5 in 2011 stayed the High Court judgment following a BGMEA petition. Later, the time period was extended several rounds.
The High Court released the full text of its verdict on March 19 in 2013. The BGMEA authorities filed leave to appeal petition on May 21 on 2013. After hearing, the Supreme Court rejected the leave to appeal petition on June 2 in 2016.
The apex court said in its full verdict that although both site and environment clearance certificates were required for the commercial building, the “petitioner failed/did not care to obtain” the latter.
No commercial establishment can be set up without the environment clearance from the Department of Environment as stated in Section 12 of the Environment Conservation Act 1995 and Rule 7(4) of the Environment Conservation Rules 1997, it said.
Since the water bodies “never belonged to the petitioner, at any point of time”, the construction violates “Section 5 of the “Joladhar Ain, 2000” as well as Sections “6(Uma)” and 12 of the Environment Conservation Act 1995″, it observed.
The court said the two natural water bodies, mentioned in Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan, Vol-II (urban area plan of 1995-2005), drain one-third of Dhaka city’s storm and waste water and retain some rainwater for recreational opportunities.
Any commercial building changing the water bodies’ nature and character in violation of “Joladhar Ain, 2000” is unlawful and violates Environment Conservation Act 1995, it said. Also, the Export Promotion Bureau has no right to allot the property, it added.
The construction violates “section 3 of the Building Construction Act 1952” other rules under it, reads the verdict.
Moreover, the High Court order was “well reasoned and based on proper appreciation of facts and circumstances as well as the law”, said the apex court.
