DR. MOHIUDDIN FAROOQUE VS BANGLADESH 49 DLR AD 1997

 

Analysis of the Fact:

Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque, the Secretary General of Bangladesh Environmental Lawyer’s Association (BELA), moved a writ petition before the High Court Division both under the clauses 1 and 2(a) of Article 102 of the Constitution praying for issuing a Rule Nisi upon the Respondents to show cause why the formation and activities of FAP, FAP-20 and  FPCO should not be declared to be Malafide and illegal and have been taken without lawful authority on the ground that the said project would adversely affect and injure more than a million people in the district of Tangail by the way of displacement, damage to the soil, destruction of natural habitat of fishes, flora, fauna and creating a dangerous drainage problem, threatening human health and worsening sanitation and drinking water supplies. It would create environmental hazards and ecological imbalance. BELA is a registered society and committee to protection of people from environmental ill effects.

Argument from the appellant:

It was argued that

The word ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED in Article 102 had to be read in the context of the entire Constitution as to the issue LOCUS STANDI. Article 21(1) said that every citizen had the duty to observe the Constitution and the laws to maintain discipline, to perform public duties and to protect public property. The preamble gave the association a standing. The preamble and Article 8 also proclaimed the principles of absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah. Absolute trust and faith ih the Almighty Allah necessarily means the duty to protect His creation and environment. So, the Appellant was aggrieved because Allah’s creation and environment were in moral danger of extinction and degradation. The words ANY PERSON in Article 102 should be read disjunctively from the word aggrieved. Any person in law lexicon meant all, each, every and some amongst many. The Constitution could not be interrelated as to bestow the concern of public interest and public importance upon only the executive and judicial organs of the state. The vast multitude outside had also a say on the matters of public interest and public importance.

The beneficiaries of the writ petition were not the members of BELA but the people including the generation yet to be born for whom the present generation holds the environment as an inter generational trust.

 

Argument from the Respondent:

It was argued that 

The appellant was not a person aggrieved. The writ petition did not disclose that the appellant as an association had suffered any injury by FAP-20 activities. The word ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED if interpreted in the manner urged by the appellant would be nothing short of legislation and an impermissible rewriting of the Constitution by the court. A liberalization of locus standi would open the floodgates to litigation which was least desirable.

Decision:

The appellant should be given the locus standi to maintain the writ petition.

Reasoning behind the decision:

The above decision was taken on the ground that BELA was concerned with the protection of the people of this country from the ill effects of environmental hazards and ecological balance. It had genuine interest seeing that people likely to be affected by the proposed project. This interest was sufficient enough to bring the appellant within the meaning of the expression PERSON AGGRIEVED. So, the petitioner had certainly locus standi in this case.

Principle:

Any person aggrieved as per te provision of Article 102 not only means individuals but also includes the consideration of people as a collective and consolidated personality.

Importance of this case:

This is one of the important cases in the Constitutional development of Bangladesh which upheld the status of AGGRIEVED PERSON in the case of public interest litigation eloquently. In this judgment Appellate Division took into consideration the character and origin of the Constitution to determine the purpose of judicial review under Article 102 and from such determination arrived at the meaning of the expression person aggrieved under Article 102.