The High Court has dismissed a rule issued in 2011 regarding the provision of police security for implementing a housing project of Purbachal Probashi Polli Limited.
During the hearing, the state argued that the petitioner had fraudulently misused an interim court order – originally granted for just four months – for nearly 15 years to serve personal business interests.
On Thursday, lawyers concerned with the case confirmed the dismissal of the rule, which was delivered by a High Court bench comprising Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice SM Iftekhar Uddin Mahmud.
Barrister Bodruddoza Badal represented the petitioner, while Additional Attorney General Mohammad Arshadul Rauf and Deputy Attorney General Mohammad Mohsin Kabir appeared for the state.
A four-month order extended for 15yrs
According to case documents, Purbachal Probashi Polli Limited was established by Managing Director Mohammad Muhidur Rahman and Chairman Habibur Rahman to run an expatriate-funded housing business in Purbachal, Dhaka.
The company was officially registered on 31 December 2009. In 2011, the company’s authorised Project Director, Md Abdul Kaiyum, filed a writ petition seeking police security to implement the project.
The petition named nine respondents, including the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Deputy Commissioners and Upazila Nirbahi Officers of Narayanganj and Narsingdi, the Managing Director of Purbachal American City Mohammad Abdullah Al Mamun, and the Officers-in-Charge of Rupganj and Narsingdi Sadar Police Stations.
Following a primary hearing on 25 July 2011, the High Court directed the officers-in-charge of Rupganj and Narsingdi Sadar Police Stations to provide security for four months to prevent any obstacles to the project’s implementation.
The court also issued a rule asking why the respondents’ failure to provide legal protection should not be declared illegal and why they should not be directed to refrain from obstructing its implementation.
The state submitted that this four-month interim order was subsequently extended at various times, allowing the company to enjoy police protection and conduct its business for nearly 15 years under the court’s directive.
On 16 July, Sub-Inspector Ahsan Habib filed a reply on behalf of the officer-in-charge of Rupganj Police Station, rejecting all allegations made in the company’s writ petition.
Harassment and lack of validity
Representing the state, the prosecution argued that the 2011 interim order was fraudulently misused to harass local landowners within the same mouza.
The state further contended that the company lacked proper legal validity and petitioned the court to penalise the petitioner for using a court order for personal gain. After hearing both sides, the High Court bench dismissed the rule.
Following the verdict, Deputy Attorney General Mohammad Mohsin Kabir said the company had severely abused the security order to serve its commercial interests over the last 15 years.
He further revealed that the state presented evidence showing the company’s chairman and managing director were exploiting the High Court order for their own benefit to evade arrest, despite being accused in multiple cases filed over the anti-discrimination movement.
Considering these crucial arguments, the High Court bench decided to dismiss the rule.
