PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)

A compilation of PIL cases in Bangladesh

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1043 of 1999
Date of filing: 1999/03/23
Print


Petitioners

1.Bangladesh Legal Aid and Service Trust (BLAST);

2. General Secretary, Consumers Association of Bangladesh

Respondents

1. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

2. Secretary, Ministry of Industries

3. Secretary, National Salt Committee

4. Director General, Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institution

5. Chairman, Bangladesh Small and Cottage Industries Corporation

6. Sundarban Natural Iodised Salt, Sundarban Salt Industries

7. Dolphin, Surabhi Salt Iodation Plant

8. Bhuiyan Salt

9. BonophoolLobon, Shama Salt Packaging Industries

10. Urmi Refined Salt, Urmi Salt and Packaging Industries

11. Mollah Salt, Mollah Salt Industries

12. Joni Special Salt, Fahad Industries

Facts

On undertaking laboratory tests which revealed that salt produced by eight manufacturers of iodized salt did not contain the required level of iodine as stipulated under law, and given that lack of adequate iodine was known to affect the normal physical and mental growth of children by causing Iodine Deficiency Diseases, BLAST filed a writ petition challenging the inaction and failure of the authorities to ensure compliance with the Iodine Deficiency Disease Prevention Act, 1989 and Rules, 1994.

Rule/Order/Judgment
Date: 14/12/2004


Details

The High Court directed the Ministry of Health and related bodies to require licensed salt manufacturers to include the minimum iodine content in salt, to prevent unregistered manufacturers from producing, marketing and selling salt for human consumption, to submit a list of registered manufacturers and also to collect samples of edible salt and submit an analysis report to the Registrar of Supreme Court twice a year.

Justices

Mr. Justice Shah Abu NayeemMuminur Rahman

Mr. Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury



Date: 25/03/1999


Details

Rule Nisi was issued upon the respondent nos 1 to 5 to show cause as to why they should not be directed (a) to take necessary steps and action to ensure that all licenced manufacturers of salt do produce pack and sell salt with iodine content confirming with quality and standard as specified in the iodine diseases prevention Act, 1989; b) to revoke licences and take action against respondnet no 6-12 and other manufacturers of iodized salt, those failed to comply with the provisions, as enumerated in the said, and c) to identify the unlicenced and take manufacturers of edible salt and to take action against those manufacturers as per provisions of the Act.


Database Last Updated on: 2017-02-12 15:26:45
Reference
25 BLD (2005) 83
Area of law
Health,
Life
Keywords
Iodized Salt Case
Relevant statute

Iodine Deficiency Disease Prevention Act, 1989 and Rules, 1994





Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1043 of 1999
Date of filing: 1999/03/23

Petitioners

1.Bangladesh Legal Aid and Service Trust (BLAST);

2. General Secretary, Consumers Association of Bangladesh

Respondents

1. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

2. Secretary, Ministry of Industries

3. Secretary, National Salt Committee

4. Director General, Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institution

5. Chairman, Bangladesh Small and Cottage Industries Corporation

6. Sundarban Natural Iodised Salt, Sundarban Salt Industries

7. Dolphin, Surabhi Salt Iodation Plant

8. Bhuiyan Salt

9. BonophoolLobon, Shama Salt Packaging Industries

10. Urmi Refined Salt, Urmi Salt and Packaging Industries

11. Mollah Salt, Mollah Salt Industries

12. Joni Special Salt, Fahad Industries

Facts

On undertaking laboratory tests which revealed that salt produced by eight manufacturers of iodized salt did not contain the required level of iodine as stipulated under law, and given that lack of adequate iodine was known to affect the normal physical and mental growth of children by causing Iodine Deficiency Diseases, BLAST filed a writ petition challenging the inaction and failure of the authorities to ensure compliance with the Iodine Deficiency Disease Prevention Act, 1989 and Rules, 1994.


Rule/Order/Judgment
Date: 14/12/2004:
Details

The High Court directed the Ministry of Health and related bodies to require licensed salt manufacturers to include the minimum iodine content in salt, to prevent unregistered manufacturers from producing, marketing and selling salt for human consumption, to submit a list of registered manufacturers and also to collect samples of edible salt and submit an analysis report to the Registrar of Supreme Court twice a year.

Justices

Mr. Justice Shah Abu NayeemMuminur Rahman,  

Mr. Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury


Date: 25/03/1999:
Details

Rule Nisi was issued upon the respondent nos 1 to 5 to show cause as to why they should not be directed (a) to take necessary steps and action to ensure that all licenced manufacturers of salt do produce pack and sell salt with iodine content confirming with quality and standard as specified in the iodine diseases prevention Act, 1989; b) to revoke licences and take action against respondnet no 6-12 and other manufacturers of iodized salt, those failed to comply with the provisions, as enumerated in the said, and c) to identify the unlicenced and take manufacturers of edible salt and to take action against those manufacturers as per provisions of the Act.

Justices


Reference
25 BLD (2005) 83

Area of law
Health,  Life

Keywords
Iodized Salt Case

Relevant statute

Iodine Deficiency Disease Prevention Act, 1989 and Rules, 1994


Related Proceedings
Database Last Updated on: 2017-02-12 15:26:45
Full Judgment Link: http://www.blast.org.bd/content/judgement/25BLD.pdf