The Appellate Division has fixed Thursday to deliver its order on a leave-to-appeal petition challenging a High Court verdict.
The High Court had previously dismissed a rule that questioned legality of the process of handing over the management of Newmooring Container Terminal (NCT) at Chattogram Port to a foreign company.
On Wednesday, an Appellate Division bench, headed by the chief justice, scheduled the date for the order.
Advocate Ahsanul Karim, assisted by Advocate Md Anwar Hossain, represented the petitioner during the hearing, while Additional Attorney General Aneek R Haque appeared for the state.
The legal challenge follows a January 29 verdict by a third High Court bench, led by Justice Zafar Ahmed, which dismissed the rule regarding the validity of the Chattogram Port Authority’s ongoing contract process with a foreign firm.
This single-judge bench was formed by the Chief Justice after a two-judge bench delivered a split verdict on December 4.
In the earlier split decision, the senior judge, Justice Fatema Najib, had declared the contract process illegal, while the junior judge, Justice Fatema Anwar, declared it legal. The petitioner subsequently filed a leave-to-appeal against the third bench’s final ruling.
The original rule in this matter was issued on July 30 of last year by a High Court bench comprising Justice Habibul Gani and Justice Sheikh Tahsin Ali.
The court had asked the authorities to explain why the ongoing process of appointing a foreign company for NCT operations should not be declared beyond legal authority.
The rule questioned why the authorities should not be directed to ensure a fair and competitive public bidding process, in accordance with relevant laws and policies, before appointing any operator to the terminal. The hearing for this rule had concluded on 25 November.
The writ petition was filed on behalf of the Bangladesh Youth Economists Forum by its president, Mirza Walid Hossain. The shipping secretary, the chairman of Chattogram Port Authority, and the chief executive officer of PPP Authority were named as respondents in the case.
