176 the Leave Petition Condonation of Delay. Ed. Dismissed APPELLATE
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
176 177 RABIA BHUIYAN,MP vs LGRD 59 DLR (AD) (2007) 59 DLR (AD) (2007) RABIA BIIUIYAN, MP vs LGRD (MdTafazzllllslamJ) judgment of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal APPELLATE DIVISION Hygienic environment is an integral facet of right to 3. 11)the writ petition it was, inter alia, stated and other connected papers. that the writ petitioner, a former Member of the (Civil) healthy lite andit would be impossible to hve with human Parliament trom Sonargaon area, a fonner Minister Md Ruhul Amin J Rabia Bhuiyan, MP............ dignity without a humane and healthy environmental 6. There is no dispute that the petitioners of Social Welfare and Women's Affairs, has rendered 9 years 9 months continuous service as MM Ruhul Amin J .Appellant. protection. Tberet()re, it has now become a matter of Md Tafazzul Islam J undertaken. various steps to alleviate social work-charged basis and thereafter he was absorbed vs grave conce..,? for human existence. Promoting environ- injustice; the Mi.tiistry,Local Government and Rural against regular substantive post in the Department ment protection implies maintenance of the environment Judgment Ministry ofLGRD & others.. Development i.e. LGRD, the Ministry of Health and without any break of service. It is also undisputed August 27th, 2005 as a whole comprising the man-made and the natural Family Welfare, Dr AZM ltlikhar Hussain, the that one Md. Harun-ur-Rashid, UD Assistant of the Respondents* environment. Therefore, there is a constitutional imper- Deputy Programme Manager Arsenic of the same Department who rendered 6 years 2 months Environment Conservation Act II ,,1 199:') i ative of the State Government and tbemunicipalities not Ministry of Health, the Chief Engineer, Department and 27 days of services on work-charged basis, on f Section 4 only to ensure all(Jsafeguard proper environment but also of Public Health Engineering i.e. DPHE, the his retirement was given full pension benefits t covering the period of his services as an work- Constitution o"'HangIadesh, 1'172 an imperative duty to take adequate measures to promote, respondent Nos.l"4 respyctivt!ly, being responsible for prevention of drinking of arsenic contaminated charged employee but in the case of the petitioner Adides 15(a), 18(1),31 & 32 protect and improve both the man-made and the natural the same benefit was denied. Thus there has been 11thus appears Ihat Ihe High Court Division I environm"nt. ..(24-25) water, are involved with the projects for installation of tubewells for "safe water" throughout the palpable discrimination in respect of the petitioner. fell in error in rejet'ting the writ petition Virendar Gaur vs State of flacyana (1995)2 SCC country; UNICEF, the respondent No.5, supported The Administrafive Appellate Tribunal further summarily Wjj!lOutat all considering Ihe .'espon- found that in case of one Shafiuddin Ahmed UD 577; MC Mehta vs Union oflndia 1999 (6) sce 12; Dr safe-water supply programme in Bangladesh and sibilities of the respondents under Ihe above law Mohiuddin Farooque vs Bangladesh 55 DLR 613 and provides technical resource supports and the Assis,tant-cum- Typist of the same Department the and Rnles and their inaction. Dircctio!'.s'from the authority concerned granted him full pension and Vineet Narain vs Union of India Al R ] 998 SC 889 ref. programmes of UNICEF are implemented through gratuity benefits covering the period of his services Court would provide a necessary cata:yst to t the respondent No.4 under the respondent No.1; due Dr Kamal Hossain. Senior Advocate. instructed by on work-charged basis but in case of the petitioner a ensuring due compliance of such bodies with their to the ala1l11raised, arsenic test in this region at first different view was taken and his pension and statutory obligations and policy commitments. Zahirlll Islam. AJvocate-on-Rec()rd~F()r the Appellant. began in West Bengal by UNICEF and subsequently gratuity, etc. for the period of his service on work arsenic testing also began in Chapainawabgonj Ex-porte-The Respondents. charged basis was denied most arbitrarily and ]n these circumstances and given the extreme gravity where DPHE found tubewells contaminated with without any lawful basis. Accordingly, Adminis- of the situation and the serious effect of continuing arsenic much above the standard level shown in the trative Appellate Tribunal held that the petitioner arsenic contamination through drinking ground water on guideline of World Health Organisation, i.e. WHO, was entitled to get pension, and gratuity benefits public health, this Court directs the respondents to fulfil Judgment the respondent No.7; in the year 1996 Dhaka covering the period of 9 years and 9 months on their legal obligations to provide safe water to millions of Community Hospital, for the first time, detected a Md 11Ifazzul Islam J : This appeal, by leave, is work-charged basis. patient with symptoms of arsenic poisoning and the persons across Bangladesh, in particular to stop human directed against the judgment dated 3-8-I999 Chairman of the said hospital, though took up the 7. It appears that the Administrative Appellate consumption of arsenic contaminated water, by adopting passed by'the High Court Division in Writ Petition matter, did not receive any response fpom Tribunal considered a number of government circu- the following measures. (22,23 & 29) No.2879 of 1999 rejecting the writ petition respondent Nos. 4 and 5; the respondent Nos.l, 2 lars issued by the Ministry of Establishment and the summarily. and also Dr Deepak Bahcherya, the respondent No. office orders issued by the PWD in this connection Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972 2. The appellant filed the above writ petition 6, who is the Chief, WES section of UNICEF, in and arrived at the decision. There is no cogent Al'tides 15, 18,31 & 32 reason to interfere with the same. in public interest, impugning the continued failure spite of numerous warnings given by experts did not Non-compliance with the statutory duties of by the Government and other public authorities, in take proper steps although the respondent No.1 IS dismissed The leave petition upon the respondents to ensure access to safe and particular the respondent No.1, to comply with their certified a list of 59 districts showing that not less condonation of delay. potable water constitutes a violation of the right legal duties under thc existing laws including the than 60 patients per thana of the above districts are Ed. to life as guaranteed by Articles 31 and 32 of the Environment Conservation Act 1995 and the Envi- affected by arsenic, a deadly carcinogen, which causes cancer; the responde!>t No.6, in a Regional Constitution read together with Articles 15 and ronment Conservation Rules 1997 in taking action, 18 of the Constitution, inter alia, to seal tube-wells contaminated with Conference held at New Delhi in the year 1997, also arsenic and to test water quality and to ensure that recognised that arsenic is a disaster in Bangladesh; *Civil AppealNo.118of 1999. the contents of arsenic in the ground water did not the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 though published guide- (Fromthejudgmentandorderdated3.8-1999passed exceed a particular quantity as noted in the lines for installing neW tubewells in Bangladesh but by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.2879 of Environmen{ Conservation RuJcs 1997. new tubewells are still being tllstalle~ in various . 1999). AD 23 "'~.,T_- 178 RABIA BHUIYAN, MP vs LGRD (Md Tafazzullslam J) 59 DLR (AD) (2007) 59 DLR (AD) (2007) RABiA BHUIYAN,MPvs LGRD(MdTafazzullslamJ} 179 places without following the above guide-lines in with arsenic contents the respondents are under STAGE includes (i) white intermittent dots within should be utilised, including the mass media and the spite of full awareness of the severity of arsenic legal duty to completely seal up the contaminated the black area (leukonelanosis or rain drop syn- communication facilities of government/non- contaminated water; respondents Nos.! and 4 have tubewells to save the lives of millions and such drome), (ii) noaular growth on the palms and soles governmental organisations and specific posters, failed to provide alternative water resource and. inaction on the part of the respondents is violative of (hyperkeratosis) and (iii) swelling of the feet and leaflets and other communication materials should further, the installation of new tubewells are fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution legs (non-pittiQg odema) and also liver and kidney be developed for this purpose. continuing without tests and the people are still and the High Court Division also fell in error in not disorders; the FINAL STAGE includes gangrene of ! 8. From the contents of National Policy of drinking arsenic contaminated water causing health appreciating that the claim of the appeIJant is based the distal organs or the parts of the body, cancer of hazards; the respondents and the concerned donor Arsenic Mitigation 2004 and Implementation plan on Articles 15(a), 18(1), 31 and 32 of the the skin, lungs and urinary bladder and kidney and for Arsenic Mitigation, Annexure-A of the addi- agencies though found extensive incidence of Constitution in breach of which the respondents are liver failure, the major sufferers. in Bangladesh are tional paper book, it appears that the Government of arsenic in the ground water, nevertheless failed to aIJowing the members of the public to continue to within 16 to 40 years of age; most patients are Bangladesh recognising the enormity of the arsenic take necessary steps to prevent human consumption drink water contaminated with arsenic contents. identified while they are at clinical stage 1 or IJ and crisis, established the BangJadesb Arsenic Mitiga- of such ground water and consequently millions of that children of 5-6 year~ are found to be affected by 6.