HC issues rule to remove illegal brick kilns in two upazilas of Lakshmipur
High Court Seeks Action Against Unauthorised Brick Kilns in Lakshmipur
Bdbusinessdaily.com – The High Court has asked the authorities to explain why illegal and unauthorised brick kilns in the Ramgati and Kamalnagar upazilas of Lakshmipur should not be removed, while also seeking measures to stop new unlawful kilns from being set up in the area.
A special High Court bench comprising Justice Razik-Al-Jalil and Justice Debasish Roy Chowdhury issued the rule after hearing a writ petition concerning brick-kiln operations in the two coastal upazilas. The respondents have been directed to submit their replies within four weeks.
The matter was confirmed on 1 October by the petitioner and his lawyer. Advocate Jyotirmoy Barua appeared for the petitioner during the hearing. Deputy Attorney General Jamila Mumtaz, along with other state lawyers, represented the state.
Petition calls for enforcement of brick-kiln laws
The writ was filed under Article 102 of the Constitution by Ashraful Alam Hannan, a resident of Charlakshmi village in Ramgati upazila. His petition requested court directions requiring the removal of every brick kiln operating without authorisation in Ramgati and Kamalnagar.
It also sought preventive action so that no further kiln could be established in breach of the laws that regulate brick production and the construction of kiln facilities. The petition places equal emphasis on addressing existing illegal operations and preventing future violations.
Brick kilns are subject to legal requirements because their construction, operation and fuel use can affect surrounding communities and the local environment. The court’s rule now requires the relevant public bodies to state their position on whether enforcement action should be ordered across the two upazilas.
The proceeding does not itself amount to a final judicial order removing the kilns. Instead, it begins a formal process in which the authorities named in the case must respond to the issues raised in the petition. Their explanations are expected within the four-week period fixed by the court.
Fifteen officials named as respondents
Fifteen officials and offices have been made respondents in the case, reflecting the range of agencies connected to environmental regulation, land administration, electricity, local infrastructure and law enforcement.
Among those named are the secretaries of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; the Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources; and the Ministry of Land. The secretary of the Local Government Engineering Department has also been included.
Other respondents include the chairman of the Bangladesh Rural Electrification Board and the chief conservator of forests. The director general of the Department of Environment, the director of its Chattogram regional office, and the department’s assistant director in Lakshmipur have also been asked to respond.
The deputy commissioner of Lakshmipur and the executive engineer of the Local Government Engineering Department are among the local administrative and technical officials listed in the writ. The upazila nirbahi officers of both Ramgati and Kamalnagar have likewise been named.
The officers-in-charge of the police stations concerned in the two upazilas are also respondents. Their inclusion highlights that any effort to implement restrictions or removal measures could require coordination among administrative authorities, regulatory bodies and local law-enforcement agencies.
Why the issue matters locally
The case focuses specifically on Ramgati and Kamalnagar rather than on brick-kiln operations across the country. If the court ultimately issues directions, the responsible authorities may need to identify which facilities are properly authorised and which ones are operating outside the legal framework.
That distinction is important for residents, business operators and officials alike. A court-directed process would require enforcement decisions to be based on the applicable rules governing kiln establishment and brick production, rather than on broad assumptions about every facility in the area.
The petition also raises a forward-looking concern: preventing the creation of additional kilns that do not meet legal requirements. This means the dispute is not limited to past or existing activity. It concerns how future applications, land use decisions, regulatory approvals and local oversight should be handled in Ramgati and Kamalnagar.
For communities near kiln sites, the case brings attention to the role of public authorities in monitoring whether industrial activity follows environmental and construction-related rules. For kiln owners, it underscores the importance of operating with the required permissions and within the conditions set by law.
The High Court’s next step will depend on the responses filed by the respondents. After receiving those replies, the court may consider whether further directions are needed regarding the removal of unauthorised brick kilns and the prevention of new illegal establishments in the two Lakshmipur upazilas.
Related Reading
Frequently Asked Questions
What is HC issues rule to remove illegal?HC issues rule to remove illegal is the main topic of this guide. The article explains the context, practical details, and next steps readers should understand.
Why does HC issues rule to remove illegal matter?HC issues rule to remove illegal matters because readers are looking for a useful answer, not just a short summary. Good content should match search intent and help them decide what to do next.