A legal mystery has unfolded at the protected Mahasthangarh archaeological site in Bogura, where illegal construction bypassed a High Court ban using a leave-to-appeal petition filed in the names of officials who deny any knowledge of it.
The Appellate Division has begun hearing the petition, which names the cultural affairs secretary, home secretary, Bogura deputy commissioner, Bogura superintendent of police, Mahasthangarh Museum custodian and Shibganj Police Station officer-in-charge as petitioners.
Yet none of them admits filing it.
The dispute centres on work backed by State Minister for Local Government Mir Shahe Alam, who wrote to the Ministry of Cultural Affairs seeking permission for construction in Shah Sultan Balkhi Mahisawar’s shrine area, which on the premises of ancient city of Mahasthangarh.
The ministry refused, but Tk74 lakh was later allocated and work began on a rest house for female worshippers.
The Department of Archaeology’s regional office wrote to the Bogura deputy commissioner on 17 June, asking him to stop the work and take legal action. The deputy commissioner halted the project.
Soon afterwards, a leave-to-appeal petition was filed against the High Court order barring the construction.
On Sunday, a four-member Appellate Division bench headed by Chief Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury began hearing the application. The next hearing was fixed for Tuesday.
The supposed petitioners have deepened the controversy.
Cultural Affairs Secretary Kaniz Mowla told TIMES of Bangladesh that the ministry had not authorised the case.
“We did not file any leave-to-appeal petition. We did not sign any power of attorney,” she said.
Asked how such an application could be filed in her name without her knowledge, she replied: “That is for you to find out.”
When the Home Ministry’s Senior Secretary, Manzur Morshed Chowdhury, was informed about the application, he replied, “I am on number two.”
Upon being asked if he was aware of the matter, he added, “I have come to know about it. However, it is better that you speak to the cultural affairs secretary.”
When it was pointed out that the culture affairs secretary claimed to know nothing about the issue, the home secretary retorted, “If she does not know, how am I supposed to know about her own ministry?”
Bogura Deputy Commissioner Md Toufikur Rahman assumed his designation might have been included because the petition had come from the ministry.
“If the ministry files an application, it may include the name of the deputy commissioner,” he said.
But the deputy commissioner is also president of the Shah Sultan shrine committee overseeing the work. He was the official who stopped it.
Asked whether anyone had discussed challenging that decision in court, he said, “No, there was no discussion with me.”
When the cultural affairs secretary was again asked about the deputy commissioner’s assumption, she repeated: “No, the ministry did not file any application.”
Bogura Superintendent of Police Mirza Sayem Mahmud said he had not been informed.
“The application was filed without informing me. You journalists are now calling me. I am learning about it through you,” he said.
Mahasthangarh Museum Custodian Razia Sultana said she first heard of the petition on 15 July. She then wrote to the regional director, stating that she had not filed it. The regional director wrote to the director general of the Department of Archaeology.
Asked whether she had received any explanation, she said, “The court will now deal with it.”
Shibganj Police Station Officer-in-Charge Md Shahinuzzaman also denied knowledge.
“I do not know anything about it. Someone has given you incorrect information using my name,” he told TIMES.
When informed that his designation appeared in the petition, he said, “I will speak about it later.”
Additional Attorney General Aneek R Haque represented the state during the hearing.
Asked how the case reached the Attorney General’s Office when the named petitioners knew nothing about it, he said, “It came from the solicitor. That is why I dealt with it.”
He declined further questions.
Supreme Cout lawyer and Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh President Manzill Murshid opposed the petition after contacting every official named.
“None of them filed the application,” he said.
Asked whether he had raised the matter before the court, he replied, “I said that this appeal was not maintainable.”
He said the court would hear the matter again after examining what had happened.
Murshid also pointed to a contradiction. The earlier High Court judgment in the Mahasthangarh case had gone in the government’s favour. He questioned how the government could appeal against a judgment supporting its own legal position.
The dispute dates back to late 2010, when HRPB filed a writ petition seeking a halt to the destruction of archaeological remains, construction of structures, expansion of the shrine and excavation within Mahasthangarh.
On 19 January 2012, the High Court directed the authorities to prevent illegal occupation of the archaeological area.
Murshid said State Minister Shahe Alam later wrote to the Ministry of Cultural Affairs seeking permission for construction in the shrine area. Although the ministry refused, funds were allocated and work began on mosque renovation, toilets and roads.
“I then spoke to the deputy commissioner, and he stopped the work. After that, this application was filed through the Solicitor’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office,” he said.
Under the Antiquities Act, as amended in 1976, destroying, damaging or disfiguring a listed archaeological site is a punishable offence. High Court orders issued on 19 January 2012 and 5 March 2020 also prohibited permanent construction within a seven-and-a-half-kilometre radius of Mahasthangarh’s protected archaeological area.
The Mahasthangarh custodian said a mosque and shrine stand inside Pundranagar. On 15 June, the ground beside the shrine was excavated for a permanent structure using bricks, sand and cement.
The state minister’s personal officer, Atiqur Rahman, said Shahe Alam himself inaugurated the work.
“If they are allowed to construct one structure, they will build more later,” Murshid said.
When contacted by TIMES, State Minister Mir Shahe Alam claimed that all the respondents were aware of the leave-to-appeal petition.
Asked why they had denied knowing about it, he said, “What is there not to know? I do not know why they are denying it now.”
He said he had no objection to the restrictions imposed by the Department of Archaeology, but argued that renovation and development work at the shrine and mosque should resume after remaining suspended for 20 years.
“The worshippers in the area have raised various demands. As the local MP, I am bound to address them,” he said.
Acknowledging that he had written to the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Shahe Alam added, “The minister also gave verbal nod saying, ‘You may carry out work at the shrine and mosque.’”
