PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)

1.Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST)
2. Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK)

1.Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works

2. RAJUK

3.Inspector General of Police

4.The Superintendant of Police

5.Officer in Charge, Savar Thana, Savar, Dhaka

6.Chief Inspector of Factories, Srama Bhaban, 4 DIT Avenue, Dhaka

7.Md. Sohel Rana, owner of Rana Plaza, Savar Bazar, Savar Dhaka

8.Managing Director, New Wave Bottoms Limited, Rana Plaza, Savar Bazar, Savar, Dhaka

9. Managing Director, Phantom Apparels Ltd, Rana Plaza, Savar Bazar, Savar, Dhaka

10.Managing Director, Phantom Apparels Ltd, Rana Plaza, Savar Bazar, Savar, Dhaka

11. Managing Director, Phantom Tack Ltd, Rana Plaza, Savar Bazar, Savar, Dhaka

12. Managing Director, Ethar Textile Ltd, Rana Plaza, Savar Bazar, Savar, Dhaka

13.Bangladesh Garments Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA)

14.Southeast Bank Limited

15.R.M. Trade International

16.Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment

On 23rd April, 2013, cracks were reportedly seen in the walls and pillars of the Rana Plaza, which housed five factories. But the building was cleared as being safe by a local engineer. The next day the workers were forced to join work. At 8:45 AM, on 24 April, 2013, the building collapsed causing the deaths of 1132 persons and injuring many others. It is estimated that 3,668 workers were in the factories at the time of the collapse.

The Court issued a Rule Nisi calling upon all the respondents to show cause as to why they should not be directed to take necessary action as required by law and the Constitution to effectively investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the deaths and injuries of the workers at Rana Plaza and why they should not be directed to take all necessary measures to prevent any such occurrences in future.

The respondents No. 8 to 12 were further directed to show cause as to why they should not be directed to pay compensation to the victims of “Rana Plaza” collapse within a specified time and why respondents No. 6 and 13 should not be directed to ensure such payment of compensation to the said bereaved families and injured workers of the incident.

In case of failure of respondents No. 8 to 12 to pay compensation or ensure such payment to the victims’ families, why the Respondent No. 6 and 13, shoul not be directed to pay the entire compensation money to the bereaved and injured families of the victims of the said incident and why all the respondents should not be directed to ensure appropriate protective measures being taken in all the factories/ industries, in particular safety precautions in the event of building collapse or any other incident causing damage to the health of the workers and also to implement and enforce legal provisions for the rehabilitation of the victims of such incidents as well as making available appropriate medical treatment for victims of building collapse or fire hazards or any other incident causing injuries to health.

The Court ordered Interim Directions on the Bangladesh Bank to issue a circular on concerned commercial banks imposing restrictions on withdrawal or transfer of money by the owners of Rana Plaza and by owners of the five RMG factories located there. TheCourt noted that the salaries of the workers should nevertheless be paid from these accounts under BGMEA’s supervision.

Mr. Justice Mirza Hussain Haider
Mr. Justice Muhammad Khurshid Alam Sarkar

The Affidavit in compliance filed by the respondent no. 7 (Bangladesh Bank) pursuant to the order dated 28.04.2013 and 30.04.13 kept in record.

The respondent no. 7 is further directed to issue another circular informing all commercial Banks for not disbursing any amount of money from the accounts maintained by Sohel Rana, proprietor of collapsed “Rana Plaza” and directors (both in personal capacity and as Director) of five garment industries housed at the said Rana Plaza, other than making payment of wages/salaries of the injured and dead workers, on an urgent basis. The Respondent no 7 is furhter directed to obatain statement of account maintained by all the Sohel Rana and owners/directors of the said five garment industries and report compliance thereof within two weeks.

Mr. Justice Mirza Hussain Haider
Mr. Justice Muhammad Khurshid Alam Sarkar

Pursuant to order dated 05.05.13, the Respondent no 7 (Bangladesh Bank) files affidavit of complaince regarding direction upon all commercial banks no to disburse any money to anyone other than the workers and direction to submit the statement of accounts. The same be kept with record for consideration at the time of hearing.

Mr. Justice Mirza Hussain Haider
Mr. Justice Muhammad Khurshid Alam Sarkar

Affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the respondent no 3, 4 and 5 be kept with the record.

Rule which could not be served upon the respondent no 8 to 12, who are Shoel Rana and four other owners/ Mananging Directors of five other garment industries because of their production before the court on 30.04.13 and has been sent to custody, is hereby directed to serve the copy of the instant rule through the inspector general (prison) and inspector general (police) by a special messenger.

Mr. Justice Mirza Hussain Haider
Mr. Justice Muhammad Khurshid Alam Sarkar

An application for direction is filed by the petitioner which is allowed and the Respondnet no. 7 , Bangladesh Bank is directed to submit statement of account for last three months starting from March 2013 till May of Respondent no 8 to 12 within two weeks.

Mr. Justice Mirza Hussain Haider
Mr. Justice Muhammad Khurshid Alam Sarkar

Respondnet no. 14, Sotheast Bank Ltd filed an application seeking permission to make payments to a number of foreign suppliers against the accepted bills under leters of credit sanctioned in favor of M/S New Wave Bottoms ltd and M/S New Wave Style Ltd.

The Court directed respondent no 14 not to deal with the freezed accounts of the New Wave Buttoms Ltd and New Wave Style Ltd until the instant case is finally disposed of by this court. However, they are at liberty to make payment of the L/C amount to the foreign suppliers from their own sources other than the freez accounts and in that event, respondent no 14 shall e at liberty to use the foreign proceeds as a security against the instant payment andset off their claim from M/S New Wave Bottoms and M/S New Wave Style after disposal of the Rule.

Mr. Justice Mirza Hussain Haider
Mr. Justice Muhammad Khurshid Alam Sarkar

Three applications were filed, 1. added party application; 2. application for direction upon the bank to pay the service charges lying in the sundry payable account; 3- application for direction upon the bank to pay the bills which have matured against the LC in the same terms as which payment was made by the bank to the foreign suppliers. BLAST has filed affidavit in opposition to the application no. 2  filed on 22.11.17

Application for addition of party is allowed. For the other two application, applicants are asked to file a reply from bank that the bank has no objection to make the payment from its own source other than the frozen account.

Mr. Justice Md. Ashraful Kamal
Mr. Justice Razik -Al- Jalil

The Lawyer for Respondent No. 17 appeared before the court and informed that they have contacted with Southeast bank (Respondent no 14) and the Bank need some time for management decision. The Court allowed two weeks time for filing the response of the bank.

Mr. Justice Md. Ashraful Kamal
Mr. Justice Razik -Al- Jalil

OUT OF LIST

Justice Zafar Ahmed
Justice Md. Akhtaruzzaman

NOT TODAY

Justice Mahmudul Hoque
Justice Md. Mahmud Hassan Talukder

NOT TODAY

Justice Mahmudul Hoque
Justice Md. Mahmud Hassan Talukder

DROPPED FORM LIST

Justice Mahmudul Hoque
Justice Md. Mahmud Hassan Talukder
Court No: Main-13