IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

Writ Petition No. 9807 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF:

An  application  under  Article  102(2)  of  the Constitution  of  the  People's  Republic  of Bangladesh.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

Md. Liton

….Petitioner

Versus

Government  of  Bangladesh,  represented  by the Secretary, Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral  Resources,  Bangladesh  Secretariat, Dhaka and others

….Respondents

Mr. Md. Anwarul Azim Khair Manna, Senior Advocate with

Mr.  Abdul  Momen  Chowdhury  (Rifat), Advocate

….For the Petitioner

Mr. Ehsan A Siddiq, Advocate with

Mr. Sayed-Ul-Haque, Advocate

 .... For the respondent No. 3

Mr. M.G. Mahmud (Shaheen), Advocate

 .... For the respondent No. 6

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Iqbal Kabir

And

Mr. Justice Md. Akhtaruzzaman

Judgment on 16.05.2024.

Md. Iqbal Kabir, J:

This Rule, was issued, calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the inaction of the respondents to provide and restore the 4 numbers of Gas connection in favour of the petitioner's house situated at 47/5, Agamasi Lane, Post Office: GPO, Police Station: Bangshal, Dhaka, (Customer  Code  No.  1124594)  and  asking  petitioner's  sister  Rehana Begum vide letter No 29.06.2022 to use the gas connection as before according to the approved house line should not be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Short facts narrated in this application are that Asgori Begum was a consumer of Titas gas having customer ID No. 1124594. She has been using 7 nos. of double burner connection in her house at 47/5, Agamasi Lane, Bongshal, Dhaka which was built on a piece of land measuring an area of 240 ajutangsha. However, on 25.07.2013 Asgori Begum sold 135 ajutangsha land, out of a total 240 ajutangsha with building and all utility connections including gas connections to the petitioner i.e., her only son vide  registered  sale  deed  No.  5424.  Thereafter,  she  transferred  the remaining part of the aforesaid land i.e., 105 ajutangsha to her daughter Rehana  Begum  vide  Declaration  of  Heba  Deed  No.  6582  dated 15.10.2015. It is to be noted that Rehana Begum with the motive of grabbing all the gas connections of her mother and thereby depriving the petitioner from using his connections mutate her name instead of her mother.  However,  in  the  month  of  December  2019,  Rehana  Begum disconnected the line that supplied gas to the 4 burners belonging to Petitioner's side. Eventually, the tenants of the petitioner left the rented flats which still remain vacant due to lack of gas supply or connection. However,  the  petitioner  requested  the  authorities  with  two  specific prayers, firstly to mutate his name along with his sister and secondly, to restore the 4 nos. of gas connections of the Petitioner, which his sister wrongfully cut off. Respondent allowed the first prayer but the second prayer remained unheeded.

It is at this juncture being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the inaction of the respondent, this petitioner brought this application before this Court and obtained the instant Rule.

Upon placing the writ petition along with supplementary affidavit dated 24.04.2024 with documents Mr. Md. Anwarul Azim Khair Manna, learned  Senior  Advocate for  the  petitioner  submits  that there were  4 numbers of gas connections as per the approved house plan. According to him, the petitioner is entitled to get restoration of such connections. In this  case,  respondents  remained  silent  without  restoring  those connections thereby violating the long-established principles of natural justice.

He next submits that due to not having gas connections to the flats, all  the  tenants  of  those  flats  left  elsewhere,  flats  remain  vacant  and  Petitioner is facing huge loss because of want of regular tenants and therefore,  the  inaction  of  the  respondents  for  not  restoring  the  gas connections is illegal.

He submits that respondents are aware that the petitioner's gas lines  have  been  disconnected,  thus  respondent  No.  5 discharges  his duties by asking Rehana Begum to allow to use of gas connections as per the  approved  plan  as  before  and  thereby  giving  authority  to  Rehana Begum to restore the connection independently, as such this act done by the respondent No. 5 is illegal and beyond their legal jurisdiction.

He sought intervention from this Court, thereby this Court may direct the Respondents to restore the connection of the 4 number gas lines in favour of the petitioner's house, otherwise, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

Mr. M.G. Mahmud (Shaheen), learned Advocate for respondent No. 6 by filing an affidavit-in-opposition denied the materials assertion and contested the Rule. He submits that there was no connection of gas in those flats owned by the petitioner thus the question of restoration of gas connection is baseless and does not arise at all.

He submits that the petitioner purchased only one-storied building having  580  sq.ft  flat  and  at  that  time  there  was  no  gas  connection therefore, the petitioner did not take any initiative to take a gas connection in his flat.

He submits present deponent filed a Civil Suit against the writ petitioner and Titas Gas Authority and civil suit is pending before the Court below, petitioner contesting such suits. According to him contention raised by the writ petitioner is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction thus the writ  petition  is  not maintainable  and  as  such  the  rule  is  liable  to  be discharged for the ends of justice.

Mr.  Sayed-Ul-Hauqe,  learned  Advocate  for  respondent  No.  3 submits that it requires a compromise application in the absence of any compromise agreement between the parties, it is not possible for Titas to make any allocation/distribution of gas connections (in respect of one Customer ID) amongst the parties. However, Titas is ready and willing to provide/restore gas connections to the parties.

We have heard the learned Advocates of both parties perused the writ petition examined the documents annexed thereto, and considered the submissions made by the parties.

It is noted that Asgori Begum was the owner of the  land and consumer of Titas gas having customer ID No. 1124594, she has been using 7 nos. of double burner connection in her house at 47/5, Agamasi Lane, Bongshal, Dhaka. Asgori Begum transferred her land between the two persons. One part of the land in question has been purchased by the petitioner from his mother i.e. Asgori Begum. The schedule of the land of the transferred deed vide Registered Sale Deed being No. 5424 dated

25.07.2013 clearly states that:

“11. pÇf¢šl ag¢pm (fË−u¡Se£u ®r−œ Aw−L J Lb¡u)x

−Sm¡-Y¡L¡, b¡e¡-p¡−hL ®L¡au¡m£, q¡−m-hwn¡m J pcl p¡h-®l¢SøÊ£ A¢gp Hm¡L¡d£e Y¡L¡ L¡−mƒl£l ®a±¢S i¨š², 1 ew Y¡L¡ ®j±S¡ ¢ÙÛa, 4 ew Ju¡−XÑl 34 ew ¢p−Vl Hp, H, 348 ew, Bl, Hp, 8397 ew, Y¡L¡ ¢p¢V Sl£−f 1165 ew M¢au¡e i¨š² 76/7 ew ®S¡a i¨š²z ¢p, Hp,

174 (HLna Q¥|k¡šl) ew c¡N, Hp, H 640 (Runa Q¢õn) ew c¡N, Bl, Hp, 1126 (HL

q¡S¡l HLna R¡¢în) ew c¡N, k¡q¡ Y¡L¡ ¢p¢V Sl£−f 804 (BVna Q¡l) ew c¡−Nl h¡s£ i¨¢j 1 ®o¡m Be¡u 0240 Aw¤a¡wnz Cq¡l L¡−a 0135 (HLna fyu¢œn) i¨¢j J ac¢ÙÛa 580 (fy¡Qna

B¢n) hNÑg¥−Vl 1 am¡ c¡m¡e, ¢py¢s, NÉ¡p, ¢hcɤv, f¡¢e, Qm¡Q−ml l¡Ù¹¡ J p¤uÉ¡−lS m¡C−el üaÄ pq Aœ c¢mm à¡l¡ p¡g ¢hœ²£a pÇf¢š h−Vz k¡q¡ Y¡L¡ c¢rZ ¢p¢V L−f¡Ñ−ln−el 47/5 ew BN¡j¡¢p ®me ®q¡¢ôw−ul Awn h−Vz k¡q¡l h¡¢oÑL M¡Se¡ ®L¡au¡m£ p¡−LÑm Ad£e Bc¡u quz”

Apart from that the remaining part of the land has been gifted to respondent No. 6 and the schedule of the land mentioned in the Gift Deed being No. 6582 dated 15.10.2015 is as follows:

“11z ¢h¢œ²a/qÙ¹¡¿¹¢la pÇf¢šl ag¢p−ml ¢hhlZx

−Sm¡-Y¡L¡, b¡e¡-p¡−hL ®L¡au¡m£ q¡−m hwn¡m, pcl p¡h ®l¢S¢øÊ A¢gp Hm¡L¡d£e Y¡L¡ L¡−mƒl£l ®a±¢Si¨š² ®j±S¡ ew ‘Y¡L¡’ ¢ÙÛa p¡−hL 4 ew Ju¡−XÑl 34 ew ¢p−Vl M¢au¡e ew Hp|H 348 (¢aena BVQ¢õn), Bl|Hp 8397 (BVq¡S¡l ¢aena p¡a¡eîC), Y¡L¡ ¢p¢V

S¢lf 1165(HL q¡S¡l HLna fuo¢VÊ) H ¢m¢Ma c¡N ew-¢p|Hp 174 (HLna Q¥u¡šl), Hp|H

640 (Runa Q¢õn), B|Hp 1126 (HL q¡S¡l HLna R¡¢în), Y¡L¡ ¢p¢V S¢lf 804 (BVna

Q¡l), ®S¡a ew 76/7 Hl h¡s£ ®nËZ£l 240 Ak¤a¡wn i¨¢jl L¡−a 105 (HLna fy¡Q) Ak¤a¡wn h¡ 1.05 (HL cn¢jL n§eÉ fy¡Q) na¡wn i¨¢j J Eq¡l Efl ¢e¢jÑa 4am¡ ¢h¢nø Cj¡la Hl c¢re f¡−nÄÑl Aw−n e£Q am¡ qC−a 4bÑ am¡ fkÑ¿¹ ¢py¢sl Awn pq fË¢a am¡u 480 (Q¡lna B¢n) hNѧg¥V L¢lu¡ ®j¡V 1920 (HL q¡S¡l euna ¢hn) hNÑg¥f¢l¢ja gÓÉ¡V J R¡c Hhw avpw¢nÔø AeÉ¡eÉ pLm fËL¡l Lje p¤−k¡N-p¤¢hd¡¢c ®kje-Cj¡l−al ¢py¢s, j§m l¡Ù¹¡ qC−a c¡m¡−el ®ia−l Nje¡Nj−el fb, Ji¡l−qX f¡¢el VÉ¡wL, f¡¢el m¡Ce, fux¢e×L¡ne (p¤Éu¡−lS) m¡Ce, ¢hc¤Év, NÉ¡p, ®jCe ¢jV¡l CaÉ¡¢c−a ®k±b hÉhq¡l L¢lh¡l f§ZÑ A¢dL¡l pj§q pq Aœ c¡eL«a pÇf¢š

h−Vz k¡q¡ Y¡L¡ c¢rZ ¢p¢V L−fÑ¡−lne Hl ®q¡¢ôw ew 47/5, BN¡j¢p ®me Hl Awnz”

It is noted that Asgori Begum was the owner of the land, the land owner transferred the land to her daughter and son. She had been using 7 nos. of double burner connection in her house having customer ID No. 1124594 at 47/5, Agamasi Lane, Bongshal, Dhaka. At the time of the transfer of her land, it was mentioned in the schedule of the transferred land about the uses of utilities. Upon reading of the alleged deed and schedule of land, it appears Asgori Begum had the intention, thus she allowed  by  the  transferred  deed  to  use  all  utility  facilities  i.e.,  gas, electricity,  water,  and  stair  jointly,  and  executed  the  deed  in  such  a manner. 

It is noted that the quantity of land is very small, wherein they built a multistoried building, it has divided into two parts by a narrow stair. Now Petitioner and his sister are the owners of that building including land. The problem has been created amongst them, and to remove such a situation everyone  has  to  sacrifice,  otherwise,  a  quality  environment  and atmosphere would not be created. However, everyone knows without gas, electricity,  and  water  life  would  be  miserable,  and  those  are  basic necessities for a human life. In the absence of any one utility, the life of the person would be difficult to survive. The record shows they were using 7 nos. of double burner connection in the house having customer ID No. 1124594. Thus it is admitted that petitioner and the respondent No. 6 have used such connection from one ID, somehow, the petitioner was disconnected from those facilities. There would be no dispute if both parties followed their respective deed related to the land in question. Therefore, the submission of the petitioner to restore the gas connection has substance. 

On that count, for ends of justice, we find justice would be met, if we give a direction to respondent No. 3 to restore the gas connection in its earlier position and or connect the gas from the ID that their mother had, until the disposal of the civil suit pending before the Court below.

Resultantly, the Rule Nisi is made absolute.

The interim order granted at the time of issuance of the Rule is hereby recalled and vacated.

There will be no order as to cost.

Communicate the order.     

Md. Akhtaruzzaman, J:

I agree.