Bangladesh
Hatirjheel Hatirjheel building not being evicted for now as SC upholds HC order
Dhaka, January 10: The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has upheld the status quo issued by the High Court, along with the eviction of all commercial establishments and four-point directions in the capital's Hatirjheel-Begunbari project.
Petitioner Manzil Morsed said that this status quo will be maintained until RAJUK's leave-to-appeal against the High Court's verdict is resolved. As a result, Hatirjheel is not being evacuated for now. At the same time, the apex court of the country will hear the application for leave to appeal made by RAJUK. The Appellate Division headed by Chief Justice Hasan Foez Siddique gave this order on Monday (January 9).
Manzil Morsed said that the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has granted RAJUK's leave to appeal against the judgment given by the High Court on the Hatirjheel project. And the restaurant in Hatirjheel, the status quo given that the establishment cannot be evicted until the appeal is disposed of, will continue.
Earlier on November 7, a five-member Appellate Division bench headed by Chief Justice Hasan Foez Siddique gave the order. The other members of the bench are Justice Md. Nuruzzaman and Justice Obaidul Hasan, Justice Borhan Uddin, Justice M. Inayetur Rahim. In continuation of that, today it came up for hearing.
Earlier, in 2018, environmentalist organization Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh filed a writ regarding the legality of setting up and conducting business activities outside the layout plan of the Hatirjheel-Begunbari project. The High Court ruled on the final hearing of the writ on June 30, 2021.
In the judgment, the High Court gave four-point directions including the evacuation of all types of commercial establishments in the Hatirjheel-Begunbari project. It also recommended nine points. After that, RAJUK filed an application seeking leave to appeal as well as a stay against the judgment, which came up for hearing in the Appellate Division Chamber Court on June 19. On that day the Chamber Court referred the petition to the regular bench of the Appellate Division for hearing. Following this, the matter came up for hearing today.
