The High Court has dismissed a rule issued over police security for the implementation of the Purbachal Probashi Palli Limited housing project, after the state accused the writ petitioner of misusing the court’s interim order for personal gain.
Lawyers concerned confirmed the matter on Thursday.
The High Court bench of Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice SM Iftekhar Uddin Mahmud pronounced the verdict.
According to the case documents, Mohammad Muhidur Rahman, managing director, and Habibur Rahman, chairman, established Purbachal Probashi Palli Limited in Dhaka’s Purbachal with funding from expatriates. The company was registered on December 31, 2009.
In 2011, the company filed a writ petition with the High Court seeking police security for its business activities.
Md Abdul Qayyum, the company’s project director, filed the petition under authority granted by the company. Nine people were made 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 the initial hearing on July 25, 2011, the High Court directed the OCs of Narsingdi Sadar and Rupganj police stations to provide necessary security for four months to prevent obstacles to the implementation of the project.
The court also issued a rule asking why the respondents’ failure to provide legal protection for the project should not be declared illegal and without lawful authority. It further asked why the respondents should not be directed to refrain from obstructing the lawful implementation of the project.
The company subsequently continued to operate its housing business by obtaining extensions of the four-month interim order from time to time over nearly 15 years.
Meanwhile, Sub-Inspector Ahsan Habib filed a response before the court on behalf of the OC of Rupganj police station, the ninth respondent in the case.
In the response filed on July 16, the state denied the allegations made in the writ petition. During the hearing, the state argued that the interim security order had been repeatedly extended and allegedly used for personal gain and fraudulent purposes for nearly 15 years.
The state told the court that the project was a privately owned commercial real estate and housing project whose legal approval and registration were themselves disputed.
It also said that in a case filed on September 11, 2024, under the anti-discrimination movement-related proceedings (GR Case No 154/2024), the project’s chairman Habibur Rahman and managing director Muhidur Rahman had been named as the first and 51st accused, respectively.
Despite this, the state argued that the project had continued to receive police security by relying on the 2011 High Court order.
The state further alleged that the project directors had forcibly taken possession of land belonging to farmers in several mouzas through fraud and forged documents. It said reports on the allegations had also been published in national newspapers.
The state argued that the original interim order in the writ had been misused to allegedly facilitate fraud and harass local landowners, while the institution itself lacked proper legal validity.
On these grounds, the state sought a penalty against the writ petitioner for allegedly filing the petition for personal gain.
After hearing both sides, the High Court dismissed the rule and delivered its verdict.
Following the verdict, the state’s lawyers said the writ petitioner had obtained a four-month interim order in 2011 and repeatedly extended it for nearly 15 years.
They alleged that the security order had been misused during this period and that the company had used it to pursue its own interests. They also alleged that the chairman and managing director, who were accused in a case related to the anti-discrimination movement, had used the High Court order to avoid arrest.
After considering the arguments, the High Court dismissed the rule issued in response to the writ petition.