Police on Thursday conducted a mobile court and seized 14 illegal Tata Sky Umbrella, direct to home (DTH) equipment and devices from a  shop at Bangabandhu Stadium Super market in the city.

During the drive, the mobile court, led by Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP) executive magistrate Abdullah Al Mamun, seized 14 illegal Tata Sky Umbrella and other equipment from “Tokyo Electronics” and also fined the shop Tk 50,000 for illegally selling the devices, said Executive magistrate Abdullah Al Mamun.

As the government has provided licenses to two local companies for DTH connection, foreign company’s DTH equipment is banned in the country, said Executive Magistrate Abdullah Al Mamun.

The DMP’s mobile court earlier conducted two drives against illegal DTH devices and seized a huge quantity of banned devices.

The High Court on Thursday issued a contempt of court rule against Dhaka Wasa Managing Director Taskim A Khan.

The HC bench of Justice Gobinda Chandra Thakur and Mohammad Ullah issued the rule against the MD for non-compliance of its order and hampering its normal activities by providing false information over the pollution of the Buriganga River.

The court asked him to respond to the rule within two weeks.

Advocate Manzill Murshid stood for the petitioner while advocate Umme Salma for Wasa and lawyer Amatul Karim represented the Department of Environment (DoE).

In 2010, Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB) filed a writ with the High Court to bring an end to Buriganga water pollution.

The HC issued directives in 2011 to Wasa for disconnecting industrial discharge lines into the river within six months.

In 2014, DoE disconnected the electric lines of those industries which had no ETP (effluent treatment plant) and those who dump industrial wastes in the Buriganga.

Manzill Murshid said the DoE action was stayed by the Supreme Court following a petition filed by Industry Owners’ Association seeking a stay. Later in 2016, the Appellate Division passed an order declaring the action by DoE legal. But Wasa did not take any step in the three years.

Later, Wasa submitted a report saying that there is no sewerage line of Wasa connecting the Buriganga River.

Dhaka Wasa, in its affidavit, said its 930-km sewerage line disposes wastes at Pagla sewerage treatment plant and no line is connected to the Buriganga.

Also read: It’s time to declare Dhaka as ecologically critical area: HC

However, a BIWTA report said Wasa dumps industrial and hospital wastes, and contaminates water of the Buriganga through 58 sewerage lines at different places of Dhaka, Keraniganj, and Narayanganj.

Meanwhile, on December 2, the Wasa managing director offered an unconditional apology to the court for falsely claiming an affidavit on June 18 last that no sewerage line was connected to the Buriganga.

After comparing the two reports, the HC said Dhaka Wasa submitted false information, which is tantamount to a crime.

The High Court on Wednesday observed that time has come to declare Bangladesh’s capital Dhaka as an ecologically critical area due to widespread pollution.

An HC bench of Justice Gobinda Chandra Tagore and Justice Mohammad Ullah made the observation while hearing a contempt of court rule against the Dhaka Wasa managing director for providing false information over the pollution of the Buriganga River and the legality of the operation of mills and factories without ETPs.

Advocate Siddiqur Rahman argued for Industries Owners’ Association of Shyampur while Amatul Karim represented the Department of Environment (DoE) and Advocate Manzill Murshid stood for the petitioner.

At one stage of hearing, the court, citing media reports, said Dhaka is among the most polluted cities of the world. “It ranks 2nd to 3rd on the list. Now, it needs to be declared as an ecologically critical area,” Manzill Murshid quoted the court as saying.

When he expressed solidarity with the opinions, the court told him that he could file a supplementary or separate appeal over the issue.

The court heard arguments from factory owners. They tried to convince the court that they have right to continue their business.

On December 8 last, the same bench ordered Dhaka Water Supply and Sewerage Authority (Wasa) to remove its sewerage lines connected to the Buriganga River within the next six months.

Responding to a time extension petition by Wasa, it had also asked the government agency to submit a progress report within a month.

Meanwhile, the Wasa managing director offered an unconditional apology to the court for falsely claiming in an affidavit on June 18 last that no sewerage line was connected to Buriganga.

The DoE was ordered to seal off industrial farms discharging wastes into the river and those running without its clearance.

On December 4, the HC directed Wasa to take necessary steps to close its 68 sewerage lines connected to Buriganga to prevent pollution.

It also asked Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Authority (BIWTA) to take steps to stop other sewerage lines, if any, on both banks of the river and submit a compliance report within January 7 next.

On November 17, the HC directed DoE to shut 27 establishments adjacent to the Buriganga within 15 days for not having environmental clearance.

Besides, the court issued a show-cause notice asking why action should not be taken against the Dhaka Wasa managing director for submitting false information in the form of an affidavit.

It was learnt that Dhaka Wasa, in its affidavit, said its 930-km sewerage line disposes wastes at Pagla sewerage treatment plant and no line is connected to the Buriganga.

However, a BIWTA report said Wasa dumps industrial and hospital wastes, and contaminated water into the Buriganga through 68 sewerage lines at different places of Dhaka, Keraniganj, and Narayanganj.

After comparing the two reports, the HC said Dhaka Wasa submitted false information which is tantamount to a crime.

In 2011, the High Court issued directives to prevent the pollution of Buriganga after hearing a writ petition filed by Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh.

As the HC order went unheeded, the organisation filed an appeal again in this regard.

A court here on Wednesday sentenced a man to death for killing his wife over dowry in Dighinala upazila in 2009.

The court also fined the convict, Shah Alam, 46, a resident of Golachhari village in Rashiknagar union Tk 50,000.

According to the prosecution, Shah Alam used to torture his wife Kohinoor Begum for dowry since their marriage.

On September 7, 2009, Alam set her on fire after pouring kerosene and locked the room from the outside.
 
Being rescued by locals, Kohinoor was taken to Dighinala Health Complex.

As her condition was critical, she was later sent to Chittagong Medical College Hospital where she died after 23 days on October 1 of the year.

Victim’s brother Alam Miah filed a case against Shah Alam in this regard.

After examining all the records and 14 witnesses, Judge of the Khagrachhari Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal Reza Md Alamgir Hasan handed down the verdict.

Parliament on Wednesday passed the Bangladesh Tariff Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2020 aiming to strengthen the commission further and expand its activities.
 
Commerce Minister Tipu Munshi moved the bill and it was passed by voice vote.
 
There are four major changes in the existing Bangladesh Tariff Commission Act, 1992 to update it as there were some limitations in the existing law.
 
The Commission was established in 1973 as a government office through a resolution. Later in 1992, the commission through the Bangladesh Tariff Commission Act-1992 was established as a statutory body.
 
The Bangladesh Tariff Commission has been renamed as the Bangladesh Trade and Tariff Commission.
 
Section 7 of the Bangladesh Tariff Commission Act, 1992 has also been changed widening the purview and the scope of activities of the commission.
 
Besides, some changes have been brought in section 8 of the existing law to ensure the privacy of the employees and staff of the commission.
 
As per section 12 of the approved act, the commission can hire consultants and research assistants on ad hoc basis in consultation with the government.