High Court Division · Special Original Jurisdiction
M/S Abdul Malek Enterprise and Md. Kibria Helal v Government of Bangladesh and others
Writ Petition 7199/2025 · Decided 17 June 2026
The Bangladesh Water Development Board dredged the Surma River and stacked the sand at dykes near Sylhet. After a first tender drew no takers, M/S Abdul Malek Enterprise sought to buy the sand of Dyke Nos. 2 and 3 at the government rate and, in its writ petition, obtained a direction that its application be disposed of. In a second tender, Md. Kibria Helal was highest bidder for Dyke No. 3. Citing the Court's direction, the Executive Engineer issued a work order of 09.09.2025 to Abdul Malek Enterprise, which Kibria Helal challenged; the Board's counsel conceded the order had been misquoted. The High Court Division held that under sections 10 and 11 of the 2010 Ain balumahals must be leased by open auction, with khas collection only where leasing is not possible, so selling the sand by khas collection during a pending tender was unjustified. As most of Dyke No. 2's sand had been removed, it directed a work order for Dyke No. 3 in Kibria Helal's favour.
- Q1
Whether the Bangladesh Water Development Board lawfully issued a work order selling dredged sand from two dykes beside the Surma River to one trader at the government rate while a tender process for the same sand was pending.
- Q2
Whether the highest bidder in the pending tender was entitled to a work order for the sand.
- Under sections 10 and 11 of the Balumahal o Mati Byabosthapona Ain, 2010, all balumahals must be leased out through open auction, and sand may be sold by khas collection only if leasing through auction is not possible.
- Selling the sand of the dykes by khas collection while a tender process for the same sand was going on was not justified in law or in the circumstances.
- The order of 03.08.2025 in Writ Petition No. 7199 of 2025 only directed the authorities to dispose of the trader's application within 30 days, and the Board's counsel conceded that the work order had misquoted it.
- Having regard to the removal of most of the sand of Dyke No. 2 and the environmental pollution caused by the dumped sand, the Executive Engineer was directed to give a work order for the sand of Dyke No. 3 to the highest bidder within three days.
- The Rule in Writ Petition No. 17114 of 2025 was made absolute in part, the stay was vacated, and the Rule in Writ Petition No. 7199 of 2025 was disposed of.
From the plain reading of the above provision, it is clear that all Balumahal shall be leased out through open auction and if it is not possible to lease through auction out then sand can be sold out by collecting Khas.
In the court’s own words.
Writ Petition 7199/2025, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 22 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.
1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
2HIGH COURT DIVISION (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
3Writ Petition No. 7199 of 2025.
with
4Writ Petition No. 17114 of 2025.
5IN THE MATTER OF:
6An application under Article 102 of the
7Constitution of the People’s Republic of
8Bangladesh.
9-And-
10IN THE MATTER OF:
11M/S Abdul Malek Enterprise.
………Petitioner
(In writ petition No. 7199 of 2025)
12Md. Kibria Helal.
…………………….Petitioner
(In writ petition No. 17114 of 2025)
-Versus-
13Government of Bangladesh and others.
………………..Respondents
14Mr. Syed Mamun Mahbub, Senior Advocate with
15Ms. Farhana Yasmin, Advocate
………………For the petitioner
(In writ petition No. 7199 of 2025)
16Mr. Habib-Un-Nabi, Advocate
………………For the Petitioner
(In writ petition No. 17114 of 2025)
17Mr. Al Reza Md. Amir, Advocate
…………For the Res. No.4
(In writ petition No. 17114 of 2025)
18Mr. Syed Mamun Mahbub, Senior Advocate with
19Mr. A.B. Shawket Ali, Advocate with
20Ms. Farhana Yasmin, Advocate
…………For the Res. No. 7
(In writ petition No. 17114 of 2025)
21Mr. Mirza Al Mahmood, DAG with
22Mr. Akhtar Hossain Md. Abdul Wahab, DAG with
23Ms. Khandaker Asma Hamid, AAG with
24Mr. S.M. Emamul Musfiqur, AAG with
25Mr. Md. Mashiur Rahman (Riad), AAG with
26Mr. Md. Mehebub Hossain, AAG
…………… For the respondents
27Present: Justice Fatema Najib
28And Justice A.F.M. Saiful Karim
Heard on 10.02.2026, 29.04.2026 and 10.06.2026.
Judgment on 17.06.2026.
29A.F.M. Saiful Karim , J:
30Since in these two writ petitions issue of leasing out same extracted sand from Surma River is involved, so, both the writ petitions have been taken up together for hearing and are disposed of by this single judgment.
31Writ Petition No. 7199 of 2025 has been filed by M/S Abdul Malek Enterprise represented by it’s proprietor Abdul Malek in which Rule Nisi was issued on 17.07.2023 in the following terms:
32“Let a Rule Nisi be issued calling upon the respondents
33to show cause as to why a direction should not be given
34upon the respondents to lease out the extracted sand
35from the Surma Nodi and Dump on City Corner Housing
36and City Corner Housing (Golghar) land situated within
37mouza-Gopal-Uttar No.8, Kandirgaon Union, Sylhet
38Sadar, Sylhet at the Government fixed rate to the
39petitioner on consideration of the application dated
4012.02.2025 filed by him as evident from Annexure-"B" to
the Writ Petition and/or such other or further order or
41orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.”
42Writ Petition No. 17114 of 2025 filed by one Md. Kibria Helal, Proprietor of M/S Shahjalal Enterprise and Stone Crusher in which Rule Nisi was issued on 28.10.2025 in the following terms:
43“Let a Rule Nisi be issued calling upon the respondents
44to show cause as to why the Memo bearing No. 508
45dated 09.09.2025 (Annexure- C) issued under signature
46of the respondent No. 4 granting work order of removing
47dredged material reserved at DR-03/2022-2023 Dyke
48No. 02 namely City Corner Housing and DR-03/2022-
492023 Dyke No. 03 namely City Corner Housing
50(Golghar) situated at Upazilla- Sadar, District- Sylhet in
51favor of the respondent No. 7 without concluding the
52auction process should not be declared to have been
53issued without having any lawful authority and is of no
54legal effect and also as to why the inaction of the
55respondents in concluding the auction process published
56under Tender Notice No. 1 bearing Memo No. 1959
57dated 22.05.2025 against serial Nos. 2 & 3 and thereby
58granting work order of removing dredged material
59reserved at DR-03/2022-2023 Dyke No. 02 namely City
Corner Housing and DR-03/2022-2023 Dyke No. 03
60namely City Corner at Housing (Golghar) situated
61Upazilla-Sadar, District- Sylhet in favor of the highest
62bidder should not be declared to be without lawful
63authority and is of no legal effect and/or such other or
64further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem
65fit and proper.”
66At the time of issuance of the Rule Nisi operation of the Memo No. 508 dated 09.09.2025 (Annexure-C) issued under signature of the respondent No. 4 granting work order of removing dredged material reserved at DR-03/2022-2023 Dyke No. 02 namely City Corner Housing and DR-03/2022-2023 Dyke No. 03 namely City Corner Housing (Golghar) situated at Upazilla- Sadar, District- Sylhet in favor of the respondent No. 7 was stayed for a period of 06(six) months.
67Facts of the Writ Petition No. 7199 of 2025:
68Petitioner’s case as it appears from the petition of Writ Petition No. 7199 of 2025 is that the petitioner has been doing business of marketing sand all over the country after purchasing sand from the authorities concerned. Water Development Board in due process with a view to maintain the depth of rivers and for navigation of the river extracted sand from the city corner area of "Surma Nodi" and
dumped more or less 2594761.48 lac cubic feet of sand at Toker Bazar by mentioning the area as City Corner Housing and City Corner Housing (Golghar) within Upazila Sadar, District- Sylhet. The authority thereafter published tender notice for leasing out those dumped sand at the rate fixed by the Government but no one has shown any interest to take lease at the Government rate, as a result those dumped sand remained unsold. The environment surrounding the area of Toker Bazar seriously affected due to the existence of those sand. The area is a highly populated residential area and during flow of wind the sand mixed-up with the entire area including the houses causing huge problem of the residence of that locality. The petitioner is the resident of that area and since he is a sand traders as well he made representation to the Honarable Advisor, Ministry of Land showing interest to take lease of those sand against payment of royalty but no decision was taken pursuant to that representation. The petitioner served a notice of demand of justice requesting the respondents to take decision on the representation dated 19.03.2025 for lease out those dumped sand to petitioner and being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent the petitioner moved before this Honarable High Court Division and obtained the present Rule Nisi. Subsequently, on 03.08.2025 upon hearing an application for direction, this Court directed the respondent Nos. 3 and 6 to dispose of the application of the petitioner dated 20.07.2025.
69Facts of the Writ Petition No. 17114 of 2025:
70In Writ Petition No. 17114 of 2025 facts leading to issuance of the Rule Nisi, in brief, are that for maintaining navigability of Surma River the Bangladesh Water Development Board (herein after referred to as the BWDB) has taken a project of conducting dredging on the said river. After dredging of the river the BWDB has stacked the sand/dredged materials on several spots beside the river for selling the same through auction process and for that the respondent No. 4 has published a tender notice on 20.11.2024 and the petitioner has participated into the said tender process but due to unknown reason the respondents did not conclude the said tender process. Thereafter, again the respondent No. 4 i.e BWDB has published an open tender notice on 22.05.2025 for auction sale of the aforesaid dredged materials.
71The petitioner again participated into the tender process and submitted bid for the dredged material stacked at DR-03/2022-2023 Dyke No. 02 namely City Corner Housing and DR-03/2022-2023 Dyke No. 03 namely City Corner Housing (Golghar) situated at Upazilla- Sadar, District- Sylhet against serial No. 2 & 3 of the tender notice by depositing 25% of the quoted amount through payorder as security money. While the petitioner was waiting for conclusion of the auction process, all on a sudden the petitioner came
to know that the office of the respondent No. 4 has granted work order of removing of the said dredged material in favor of the respondent No. 7 (writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 7199 of 2025) without concluding the auction process referring order dated 03.08.2025 passed in Writ Petition bearing No. 7199 of 2025. On further inquiry the petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 7 has filed an application before the Ministry of land for purchasing the said dredged material and on the said application the office of respondent No. 1 issued a letter upon the respondent No. 3 to take action on the application of the respondent No. 7 as per the provision of বালুমহাল ও মা ট ব ব াপনা আইন, ২০১০ (সংেশাধন, ২০২৩) on 27.02.2025 and as the respondents were taking preparation for another tender process, without granting work order to the respondent No. 7 as per law, the respondent No. 7 has filed a writ petition bearing No. 7199 of 2025 and obtained a Rule Nisi on 19.05.2025. After obtaining the Rule the respondent No. 7 has made representations before the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 making false statement to the effect that the High Court Division has directed them to grant lease of the dredged materials in question in his favor. While the 2nd tender process was in progress the respondent No. 7 has filed another application before the respondent No. 3 and 4 for granting khas collection lease of the aforesaid dredged material (sand) on 20.07.2025 and thereafter filed an application before the High Court Division for a direction and
72upon hearing Hon’ble High Court Division vide order dated 03.08.2025 directed the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to dispose of the application of respondent No. 7 dated 20.07.2025 within 30 (thirty) days.
73Then the respondent No. 4, stopping the valid tender process and misquoting the court’s order, has issued the impugned work order dated 09.09.2025 granting lease of the dredged materials in favor of the respondent No. 7 and thereafter the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 17114 of 2025 has made representation before the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 on 16.10.2025 praying for cancellation of the impugned work order dated 09.09.2025 and for completion of the tender process; and thereafter being aggrieved by the work order as well as by the inaction of the Respondent No. 4 to dispose of the representation dated 16.10.2025 the petitioner moved this Division and obtained the aforesaid Rule Nisi and order of stay.
74Respondent Nos. 4 and 7 have entered appearance by filing separate affidavit-in-opposition in Writ Petition No. 17114 of 2025.
75The case of the Respondent No. 4 i.e Executive Engineer (BWBD), as it appears from the affidavit-in-oppositioni, in brief, are that Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWBD) in due process with a view to maintain the depth of rivers and for navigation of the river extracted sand from the city corner area of Surma Nodi and dumped more or less 2594761.48 lac cubic feet of sand at Tuker
Bazar by mentioning area as City Corner Housing and City Corner Housing (Golghor). BWDB thereafter on 20.11.2024 published tender notice for lease out those sand dumped sand but no one has shown interest to take lease of the dumped sand in the dyke and thus those sand remained unsold. One of the sand traders namely M/S Malek enterprise (Respondent No.7) on 12.02.2025 made a representation before the Ministry of land showing his interest to take lease of Dyke No. 2 and Dyke No. 3 by paying all government revenue and royalties and other sand traders also showed their interests but no decision was taken on the basis of representation.
76On 16.04.2025 a meeting of জলা পািন স দ উ য়ন ও ব ব াপনা কিম ট held wherein it was decided that a fresh tender would be called for lease out 9 unsold dykes including the Dyke Nos. 2 and 3. On 22.05.2025 a new Tender Notice was published under the signature of Respondent No. 4 bearing Memo No. 1959 dated 22.05.2025 to lease out dykes including the Dyke Nos. 2 and 3 and in the Tender the petitioner participated in the tender process by submitting price for Dyke No. 2 and 3 and while the tender was on process the Respondent No. 7 as petitioner filed Writ Petition being No. 7199 of 2025 and obtained a Rule Nisi on 19.05.2025 and he again made representations showing his interest to take lease of Dyke No. 2 and Dyke No. 3 and he again filed an application before the Hon’able Court for direction upon the respondent to grant lease of the Dyke
Nos. 2 and 3 whereupon Hon'ble Court directed the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 of that Writ Petition to dispose of the aforesaid application within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
77On 28.07.2025 a meeting of জলা পািন স দ উ য়ন ও ব ব াপনা কিম ট held wherein it was decided that decision of lease will be taken on basis of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court and after receiving the Hon’ble Court's order dated 03.08.2025 the respondent No. 4 vide its memo dated 09.09.2025 allotted the Dyke No. 2 and 3 to the respondent No. 7 in government rate as mentioned in the 1st tender notice.
78Being aggrieved with the allotment to the Respondent No. 7 the petitioner filed writ petition challenging the memo dated 09.09.2025 allotting the Dyke Nos. 2 and 3 to the respondent No. 7 and accordingly obtained an order of stay. After receiving order of stay the Respondent No. 4 by its letter dated 03.11.2025 stopped the respondent No. 7 from releasing any sand from the Dyke no. 2 and Dyke no.3.
79On 05.11.2025 Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Revenue officer made inspection of the Dyke no. 2 and Dyke no. 3 and found that most of the sand of the dyke no. 2 have already been released from the dyke and stopped from releasing the rest of sand from the Dyke No. 2 and entire sand from Dyke No.3
With these averments respondent No. 4 undertakes to obey any order which would be passed by the Hon’ble court in these respects.
80The case of Respondent No. 7, in brief, are that the petitioner filed the Writ Petition against Memo bearing No. 508 dated 09.09.2025 (Annexure- C) granting work order of removing dredged material stacked at DR-03/2022-2023 Dyke No. 02 namely City Corner Housing and DR-03/2022-2023 Dyke No. 03 namely City Corner Housing (Golghar) in favor of the respondent No. 7 and inaction of the respondents in concluding the auction process published under Tender Notice No. 1 bearing Memo No. 1959 dated 22.05.2025 against serial No. 2 & 3 and thereby granting work order of removing dredged material stacked at DR-03/2022-2023 Dyke No. 02 namely City Corner Housing and DR-03/2022-2023 Dyke No. 03 namely City Corner Housing (Golghar) situated at Upazilla- Sadar, District-Sylhet in favour of the highest bidder and obtained instant Rule Nisi alongwith an order of stay operation of the Memo dated 09.09.2025.
81After issuance of order of stay the authority vide memo dated 03.11.2025 stopped all kinds of activities and thus the respondent no. 7 could not remove any sand which he purchased in due course.
82With these averments respondent no. 7 prays to discharge the Rule Nisi of Writ Petition No. 17114 of 2025.
83The learned Counsel, Mr. Habibun-Un-Nabi appearing for the petitioner of the Writ Petition No. 17144 of 2025 submits that as per the বালুমহাল ও মা ট ব ব াপনা আইন, ২০১০ (সংেশাধন, ২০২৩) there is no provision to stop any valid tender process under which granting lease or work order of any dredged material or balumahal in any one’s favour and therefore the impugned work order is liable to be declared as illegal and without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.
84He vigorously submits that the High Court Division did not direct the respondents to grant work order in favor of the respondent No. 7 (writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 7199 of 2025) rather the High Court Division directed the respondents to dispose of the application of the respondent No. 7 as per law; that the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 could have rejected the application of the respondent No. 7 as the law does not permit the respondents to grant lease or work order directly while a tender process is on but the respondent No. 4 in violation of the provision of বালুমহাল ও মা ট ব ব াপনা আইন, ২০১০ (সংেশাধন, ২০২৩) has granted the work order in favor of the respondent No. 7 and therefore the impugned work order is liable to be declared as illegal and without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.
85He also submits that tender process is the only way permitted for granting lease or work order of any balumohal or dredged material as per law and the government gets better and competitive rate by leasing out through tender process and therefore being the
highest bidder the writ petitioner i.e Md. Kibria Helal is entitled to get the sand.
86Per contra, Mr. Syed Mamun Mahbub, Senior counsel along with Ms. Farhana Yasmin, the learned Advocates appearing for the respondent no. 7 of Writ Petition No. 17114 of 2025 submits that on consideration of the representation of Mr. Abdul Malek, the respondent No. 4 issued memo dated 27.08.2025 allowing him to remove dredged material (sand) on payment of the price fixed by the authority and the respondent No. 7 accepted the offer and purchased those dredged sand by payment of the price fixed by the respondent authority and therefore the impugned work order dated 09.09.2025 has been issued and the respondent No. 7 took over the possession of the said sand and as per work order the respondent No. 7 removed portion of the sand and therefore the petitioner as valid purchaser and possessor of the sand is entitled to remove and sell the rest sand and thus the Rule Nisi is liable to be discharged.
87The learned counsel, Mr. Al Reza Md. Amir, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 submits that in the 1st tender no one participated and subsequently the Respondent No. 4 in accordance with the resolution of জলা পািন স দ উ য়ন ও ব ব াপনা কিম ট dated 16.04.2025 called for 2nd Tender but in the meantime the Respondent No. 7 of writ petition no. 17114 of 2025 as petitioner filed writ petition being No. 7199 of 2025 in which Hon'ble Court
passed a direction to dispose of the application of the Respondent No. 7 and in disposing of the application of the Respondent No. 7 another meeting of জলা পািন স দ উ য়ন ও ব ব াপনা কিম ট was held on 28.07.2025 wherein it was decided that decision regarding Dyke No. 2 and 3 will be taken as per the judgment of this Hon'ble High Court Division.
88He candidly concedes that subsequently misquoting order dated 03.08.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 7199 of 2025 the Respondent No. 4 allotted the sand of dyke Nos. 2 and 3 in government rate as mentioned in the 1st tender in favour of the Respondent No. 7 and therefore he verbally undertakes to obey the decision of the court disposing of these writ petitions.
89We have perused both these writ petitions and annexures thereto; affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent Nos. 4 and 7 of the Writ Petition No. 17114 of 2025 and other materials on record.
90The only point for consideration in these Rule Nisi whether impugned work order dated 09.09.2025 issued in favour of M/S Abdul Malek Enterprise under the signature of the respondent no. 4 (BWDB) and inaction in granting work order in favour of Md. Kibria Helal (petitioner of Writ Petition No. 17114 of 2025) has been issued after following the provision of law and whether the writ petitioner
of the Writ Petition No. 17114 of 2025 is entitled for work order as prayed for.
91In order to address the issue, it is necessary to consider the events that had taken place prior to the issuance of the impugned work order.
92It is admitted position that writ petitioner of the Writ Petition No. 17114 of 2025 has participated in the first tender for selling dredged materials (Sand) stacked on various spot beside Surma River through auction but the said tender process was not concluded. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 4 called for 2nd tender on 22.05.2025 and the writ petitioner Md. Kibria Helal participated in the tender process by submitting price for Dyke Nos. 2 and 3 and became the highest bidder for Dyke No. 3 and second highest bidder for Dyke No. 2 but M/S Malek Enterprise i.e the writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 7199 of 2025 on 12.02.2025 made representation before the Ministry of Land showing his interest to purchase the Sand of Dyke No.2 and Dyke No. 3 by paying all government revenue and royalties and other sand traders also showed their interests but the Respondent authority did not take any decision on the said representation rather in a meeting of ‡Rjv cvwb m¤ú` Dbœqb I e¨e¯’vcbv KwgwU it was decided to issue fresh tender notice for Dyke Nos. 2 and 3 along with other Dykes and while the tender was on process the
writ petitioner (Writ Petition No. 7199 of 2025) obtained an order of direction dated 03.08.2025 from this court to dispose of the representation dated 20.07.2025. In the meantime on 28.07.2025 a meeting of ‡Rjv cvwb m¤ú` Dbœqb I e¨e¯’vcbv KwgwU was held wherein it was decided that next steps will be taken as per the judgment of Writ Petition No. 7199 of 2025 and subsequently the Executive Engineer, Sylhet Water Development Division sold the sand of Dyke Nos. 2 and 3 to the Respondent No. 7(Writ Petition No. 17114 of 2025) in government rate as mentioned in the 1st tender notice and subsequently issued impugned work order dated 09.09.2025 and thereafter upon receipt of order of stay dated 28.10.2025 the Executive Engineer stopped releasing sand from the Dyke Nos. 2 and 3 vide letter dated 03.11.2025 and the total sand of Dyke No. 3 remains reserved though substantial portion of sand of Dyke No. 2 has been removed which is evident from inquiry report dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure-X-12 of Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 4). Due to the air pollution for wind flow with unremoved staked sand the environment of the surrounding area is heavily affected.
93We have gone through the provision of sections 10 and 11 of evjy gnvj I gvwU e¨e¯’vcbv AvBb, 2010 which is reproduced herein below:
94“১০। বালুম হাল ইজ ারা দান, ইত ািদ। (১) সকল বালুমহাল, িবিধ "ারা িনধািরত
95$ প&িতেত, উ'ু( দরপে)র মাধ েম ইজারা *দান কিরেত হইেব। (২) এই আইেনর অধীন ইজারা *দান সং/া0 সকল িবষেয় জলা *শাসকেক সহায়তা কিরবার জন *িত ট জলায় জলা বালুমহাল ব ব াপনা কিম ট নােম এক ট কিম ট থািকেব। (৩) উপ-ধারা (২) এর অধীন গ ঠত জলা বালুমহাল ব ব াপনা কিম টর গঠন ও কাযপ&িত
$ িবিধ "ারা িনধািরত
$ হইেব।
96(৪) উপ-ধারা (১) এর অধীন উ'ু( দরপে) জলা *শাসেনর িনকট এই আইেনর অধীন তািলকাভ8( কান ব 9( বা *িত:ান ব তীত অন কহ অংশ;হণ কিরেত পািরেবন না। (৫) উপ-ধারা (৪) এর অধীন তািলকাভ89(র শত$ািদ, ময়াদ ও প&িত িবিধ "ারা িনধািরত
$ হইেব।
97(৬) কান বালুমহাল ইজারার *@াব অনুেমািদত হইবার পর, জলা *শাসক ইজারা *দA বালুমহােলর সুিনিদ$B বণনাসহ
$ ইজারার শত$সমূহ
98সুিনিদ$Bভােব উেDখপূবক
$ িবিধ "ারা িনধািরত
$ প&িত ও ফরেম, ইজারা
99চ89( স াদন কিরেবন। (৭) ইজারা মূেল র স ূণ $ অথ $ আদােয়র পর সংিIB ইজারা;হীতােক বালুমহােলর দখল হ@া0র কিরেত হইেব। ১১। ইজ ারা ব তীত বালুম হাল হইেত বালু বা মা ট উে ালন, ইত ািদ ও রাজJ আদায় িনিষ&। কান বালুমহাল ইজারা *দান করা না হইয়া থািকল, উ( বালুমহাল হইেত এই আইেনর অধীন ইজারা *ধান ব তীত অন কান প&িতেত বালু বা মা ট উেAালন, পিরবহন, িবপনন
ও সরবরাহ করা যাইেব না এবং এই মেম $ কান রাজJও আদায় করা
যাইেব না।“
100Section 11 of the said Act, 2010 has been amended in 2023 and the provision of the amended section 11 of the Act, 2010 is as follows:
"১১। ইজারা বিহভূ ত
$ বালুমহাল হইেত সরকাির রাজJ আদায়। কােনা
বালুমহাল ইজারা *দান করা সLব না হইেল, উ( ইজারা বিহভূ ত
$
বালুমহাল হইেত সরকাির রাজJ আদােয়র উেMেশ , িবিধ "ারা
িনধািরত
$ প&িতেত, খাস আদােয়র মাধ েম বালু বা মা ট উেAালন,
পিরবহণ, িব/য় ও সরবরাহ করা যাইেব।"
101From the plain reading of the above provision, it is clear that all Balumahal shall be leased out through open auction and if it is not possible to lease through auction out then sand can be sold out by collecting Khas.
102We have considered the impugned work order dated 09.09.2025 which is reproduced herein below:
“বাংলােদশ পািন উ য়ন বাড$
িনবাহী
$ *েকৗশলী'র দ0ম
িসেলট পািন উ য়ন িবভাগ, বাশাউেবা, িসেলট।
www.bwdb.gov.bd
103Pারক নং ৫০৮ তািরখ: ০৯/০৯/২৫ বরাবর, মসাস আTু
104$ ল মােলক এUার*াইজ *াপাইটর: আTুল মােলক ;ামঃ গৗরীপুর, ডাকঘরঃ ট8েকরবাজার, থানাঃ িসেলট সদর জলাঃ িসেলট। িবষয়ঃ িস ট কনার
$ হাউ9জং এবং িস ট কণার
$ হাউ9জং ( গালঘর) িসেলট, Xজড ম ােটিরয়াল
105সংরYণ ডাইক (DR-03/2022-2023 Dyke No-02) এবং (DR-03/2022-2023 Dyke No-03) এর Xজড ম ােটিরয়াল *দান *সেZ।
সূ)ঃ অÎ দßi Pারক নং-৪৩০, তািরখঃ ২৭/০৮/২০২৫ ি[ঃ
106উপেরা( িবষেয় আপনার অবগিতর জন জানােনা যাে\ য, "িসেলট জলার িসেলট সদর ও িব]নাথ উপেজলায় দশMÖvg, মাহতাবপুর ও রাজাপুর পরগণা বাজার এলাকা সুরমা নদীর উভয় তীেরর ভাঙন হেত রYা (১ম সংেশািধত)" *কে_র আওতায় সুরমা নদী X9জং কের *া` Xজড ম ােটিরয়াল মহামান হাইেকােট$ র িডিভশন িরট িপ টশন নং-7199 of 2025 তািরখ: ০৩/০৮/২০২৫ ি[ঃ মাতােবক মসাস $ আTুল মােলক এUার*াইজ, *াপাইটর: আTুল মােলক, ;াম: গৗরীপুর, ডাকঘর: ট8েকরবাজার থানা। িসেলট সদর জলা: িসেলট ক সরকার িনধািরত
$ রাজJ (অথ)$ স ূণ পিরেশাধ
$ সােপেY িবষেয় বিণত$ প ােকেজর
107ডাইক সমূেহর Xজড ম ােটিরয়াল *দােনর িস&া0 দয়া হয়। এমতাব ায় সূ) Pারক অনুসাের আপনার *িত:ান কতৃক
$ Xজড ম ােটিরয়ােলর স ূণ $ অথ $ এবং ভ াট ও আয়কর
108জলা *শাসক, িসেলট বরাবর পিরেশাধ করায় িনbবিনত$ শত$ *িতপালন পূবক
$ Xজড
109ম ােটিরয়াল অপসারেণর অনুমিত *দান করা হইল। kZ©mg~nt ১| নদীর X9জংকৃত মা ট/ বািল বািতত অন কান ান হেত মা ট/বািল সং;হ করা যােব না এবং িবদ মান কৃিষ জিম অপিরবিত$ত রেখ মা ট/বািল সং;হ করেত হেব। মা ট$ /বািল সং;হ করার ফেল নদীর গিতপথ বe হেয় যায় এমন ভােব মা ট/বািল সং;হ করা যােব না। নদীর দুইপােরর fাপ/ঢােলর কানhপ Yিত করা যােব না। ২। নদীর X9জংকৃত মা ট$ /বািল এলাকার অভ 0ের কউ অৈবধ অনু*েবশ করেল তার দািয়j িনলাম ;হীতােক বহন করেত হেব। ৫। Xজড ম ােটিরয়াল অপসারেণর সময় কান রা@া/সরকাির/ বসরকাির স দ Yিত; হেল তা িনলাম ;হীতার িনজ খরেচ মরামত কের িদেত হেত। ডাB কর গমনেযাগ তা বািল অপসারণ পিরবহন এবং ভূ িম মািলেকর Yিতপুরণসহ ইত ািদ যাবতীয় মূল িবেবচনা করেবন। ৪। মা ট/বািল অপসারেণর সময় িনলামকৃত ান সমূেহ সতক$তামূলক ব ব া িহসােব লাল পতাকা *দশন$ করেত হেব। ৫। মাট$ ।বািল অপসারেণর সময় ানীয় জনগেণর জায়গা জিমর কান *কার Yয়-Yিত করা যােব না এবং Yিতর সkুখীন হেল িনলাম ;হীতা িনজ উেদ ােগ তা সমাধান করেব। তােত কতৃপ
$ Y কানhপ হ@েYপ করেব না বা দায়ী থাকেব না।
110৬। মা ট/বািল অপসারেণর সময় কান *কার `~N©Ubvi জন িনলামদাতা/কতৃপ
$ Y দায়ী
111থাকেবন এবং কান *কার Yিতপূরেণর দািব আসেল তা িদলাম ;হীতােকই বহন করেত হেব। ৭। মা ট/বািল অপসারেণর িবষেয় সরকার কতৃক
$ সময় সময় জািরকৃত সকল সাকুল
$ ার, িবধান
112ও আইনসমূহ মেন চলেত হেব।
৮। মা ট$ /বািল অপসারেণর সময় আদালেতর িগতােদশ/ি তাব া/িনেষধাlা বলবৎ থাকার কারেণ িনলাম ;হীতা Yিত; হেল বা য কান পযােয়
$ িনলাম বািতল হেল তার জন কান
113*কার Yিতপূরণ দািব করা যােব না। ৯। বিণত$ কান শত$ ভZ করা হেল িনলামদায়া/কতৃপ
$ Y তাৎYিণক ভােব মা ট/বালু অপসারণ
114কায বe $ কের িদেত পারেবন এবং তােত কাযােদশ
$ বািতল বেল গণ হেব।
(দীপক রnন দাশ)
িনবাহী
$ *েকৗশলী
আইিড নং-৮১১৯২৬০
িসেলট পািন উ য়ন িবভাগ, বাপাউেবা, িসেলট ও সদস সিচব,
জলা পািন স দ উ য়ন ও ব ব াপনা কিম ট।
E-mail xen.bwdb.sylhet@gmail.com.”
115It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of the order dated 03.08.2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 7199 of 2025 and thus reproduced as follows:
“In the facts and circumstances of the case, we
deem it fit and proper to direct the respondent Nos.
3 and 6 to dispose of the application of the
petitioner dated 20.07.2025 (Annexure-X-2 to the
Application) within a given time-frame.
Accordingly, we direct the respondent Nos. 3 and 6
to dispose of the aforesaid application within
30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.”
116From the discussions made above we find that in the present case while tender process was going on for selling the dredged material (sand) for Dyke Nos. 2 and 3, the sand of the said two
Dykes has been sold by collecting khas. It appears to us that action of the respondent no. 4 in this regard is not justified under the provision of law as well as under the circumstances of the case.
117Considering the above facts and circumstances we find substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel of writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 17114 of 2025 and considering the practical position of the sand of Dyke Nos. 2 and 3 and environmental pollution created with the dumped sand we are of the view that justice would be best served if the Rule Nisi of Writ Petition No. 17114 of 2025 is made absolute-in-part and Rule Nisi of Writ Petition No. 7199 of 2025 is disposed of and if an order of direction is passed upon the respondent no. 4 to give work order in favour of the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 17114 of 2025 for the Sand of Dyke No. 3 only.
118Resultantly, Rule Nisi of Writ Petition No. 17114 of 2025 is made absolute-in-part. Order of stay granted at the time of issuance of the Rule stands vacated.
119Rule Nisi of Writ Petition No. 7199 of 2025 is disposed of.
120However, the Respondent No. 4, the Executive Engineer, Sylhet Water Development Division, is directed to give work order in favour of Md. Kibria Helal in respect of the sand of Dyke No.3 within 3(three) days from the date of receipt of this judgment.
121There will be no order as to cost.
122Let a copy of this judgment immediately be transmitted to the respondents at once.
A.F.M. Saiful Karim, J:
123Fatema Najib, J:
I agree.
Fatema Najib, J:
124AZOM(BO)
Related summaries.
From the record to your case.
Our advocates appear before both divisions of the Supreme Court. These are the practice areas that handle matters like this one.
- Supreme Court practice in BangladeshSlips, mentioning, cause lists and appearances→
- Case JourneysHow a case moves through the courts, step by step→
- Limitation and appeal deadline calculatorKnow your last day to file→
- Curative petitions in BangladeshFinality, article 104 and the case for reform→
- Constitution guideEvery article and amendment, animated→
- Bangladesh legal glossaryBangla and English legal terms, explained→
