Authored By: Razwan Ahamed
University of Asia Pacific
Case Name: Jamuna Builders Ltd. v. Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (2005)
Citation: 57 DLR (2005) 762; 34 CLC (HCD) 762
Court: High Court Division (Special Original Jurisdiction), Supreme Court of Bangladesh
Bench: Md. Awlad Ali J and Md. Emdadul Huq J
Date of Judgment: 9 May 2005
Background and Context
The landmark case of Jamuna Builders Ltd. v. Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (RAJUK) is a cornerstone of Bangladeshi administrative law. It deals with bureaucratic discretion, protection of property rights, and the rule of law in urban governance. The dispute arose when RAJUK ordered the demolition of part of the “Jamuna Future Park” project — Bangladesh’s largest private infrastructure venture — without following statutory procedures. The judgment addressed the scope of administrative power, judicial review, and the constitutional guarantee of natural justice.
Facts of the Case
Genesis of the Dispute
Jamuna Builders Ltd. purchased around 2,500 decimals of land to construct a vast commercial cum-residential complex, “Jamuna Future Park.” Under Section 75(1) of the Town Improvement Act, 1953, RAJUK issued a land-use clearance certificate for commercial development, validating the project’s legality within Dhaka’s zoning plan.
Submission of Building Plans
On 12 September 2001, the petitioner submitted detailed architectural and structural plans under Section 3 of the Building Construction Act, 1952. All technical and ownership requirements were met, and fees were paid. As per Rule 7(1)(Kha) of the Building Construction Rules, 1996, RAJUK’s authorised officer was required to decide within 45 days. However, the agency remained silent long after the statutory deadline expired.
By December 2002, the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the petitioner’s title, and the Civil Aviation Authority approved the proposed height — proving full compliance with all procedural requirements. Yet, RAJUK’s inaction persisted.
Commencement of Construction
Facing financial loss, the petitioner notified RAJUK on 23 March 2002 that construction would proceed pending approval. Over the next eight months, building work continued without objection. The petitioner treated RAJUK’s silence as “deemed consent,” a principle of implied approval recognised in administrative law.
The Demolition Order
On 17 November 2002, after substantial progress, RAJUK abruptly issued a memo under Section 3B(3) of the 1952 Act declaring the construction illegal and ordering demolition within seven days. The petitioner alleged that the order was politically motivated, instigated by a minister aggrieved by reports published in the Daily Jugantor, owned by the petitioner’s group. The order was challenged as arbitrary, mala fide, and contrary to due process.
Legal Issues
The Court identified three key questions:
- Whether RAJUK’s authorised officer had a statutory duty to approve a compliant plan within the prescribed period, or could indefinitely withhold sanction.
- Whether the demolition order issued without notice or hearing violated Section 3B(1)(b) and the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the Court could direct RAJUK to regularise the construction under Section 3B(5)(d) upon payment of penalties.
Arguments Presented
Petitioners’ Submissions (Mr. Rafique-ul Huq, Senior Advocate)
Statutory Duty to Act:
The petitioner contended that once statutory preconditions were met, RAJUK’s officer was legally bound to grant approval within 45 days. Prolonged inaction amounted to an abuse of power and dereliction of statutory duty, citing Authorised Officer, DIT v. A.W. Malik (21 DLR 195).
Violation of Natural Justice:
The demolition order was void because it was issued without a show-cause notice as required under Section 3B(1)(b). Relying on Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 and Bangladesh v Idrisur Rahman (41 DLR AD 233), counsel argued that even administrative actions must comply with natural justice.
Doctrine of Acquiescence:
RAJUK’s silence for eight months after being notified of construction amounted to acquiescence or implied consent. The principle of promissory estoppel barred RAJUK from later declaring the same act unlawful.
Regularisation under Section 3B(5)(d):
The petitioner offered to pay penalties up to ten times the normal fee to regularise the construction, demonstrating bona fide compliance.
Respondent’s Submissions (Ms. Sigma Huda, Counsel for RAJUK)
- 1. Illegality of Premature Construction:
RAJUK argued that no construction could commence before formal written approval under Section 3, regardless of compliance with technical requirements.
- Administrative Delay Justified:
Given the project’s unprecedented scale, inter-agency coordination required time. Thus, the delay was not mala fide but administrative necessity.
- Lawful Demolition Power:
RAJUK defended the demolition notice under Section 3B(3), stating it acted to uphold statutory authority and prevent unlawful urban sprawl.
- Judgment
The High Court Division made the Rule absolute, holding that RAJUK’s demolition order was illegal, without lawful authority, and violative of constitutional rights.
The Court directed RAJUK to:
- Approve the petitioner’s building plan within two months;
- Regularise the construction upon payment of ten times the prescribed fee; and • Ensure compliance with technical rules before granting final approval.
Ratio Decidendi
Limiting Administrative Discretion
The Court held that RAJUK’s power under Section 3 is not discretionary once legal requirements are fulfilled. Administrative authorities must act within statutory limits and for legitimate purposes. Citing Anisminic Ltd. v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, the judges reiterated that even discretionary powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily or for extraneous reasons.
Breach of Natural Justice
RAJUK’s failure to provide notice and hearing under Section 3B(1)(b) constituted a clear breach of audi alteram partem. The Court reaffirmed that procedural fairness is a constitutional obligation under Articles 27 and 31. Reference was made to Kazi Nazrul Islam v Bangladesh (40 DLR 147), which declared that fairness is integral to the protection of law.
Finding of Mala Fide
The Court inferred bad faith from RAJUK’s silence, abrupt demolition order, and the timing coinciding with political controversy. Such acts, influenced by external pressures, were described as a “colourable exercise of power,” following Bangladesh v Shamsuddin Ahmed (43 DLR AD 105).
Proportionality and Regularisation
Applying Section 3B(5)(d), the Court allowed regularisation upon payment of penalties, balancing legal compliance with economic reason. This approach, rooted in the principle of proportionality recognised in Abdul Mannan Khan v Government of Bangladesh (55 DLR AD 25), ensured fairness without sacrificing legality.
Constitutional and Jurisprudential Significance
Protection of Property Rights
By nullifying the demolition order, the Court reaffirmed Article 42 of the Constitution, ensuring that deprivation of property must be lawful and procedurally sound. Arbitrary interference violated Articles 31 and 42, which protect the right to hold and enjoy property.
Judicial Review and Mandamus
Invoking Article 102, the Court issued a mandamus compelling RAJUK to discharge its statutory duties. This reinforced earlier jurisprudence such as Md. Shamsul Huda v Bangladesh (43 DLR 234), confirming that administrative inaction is reviewable under writ jurisdiction.
Separation of Powers and Accountability
The Court emphasised that statutory bodies like RAJUK cannot act under political direction. Administrative power is a trust for the public good. Referring to Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case) [1985] AC 374, the Court aligned Bangladesh’s administrative law with global principles of fairness and legitimate expectation.
Broader Impact
- Strengthening the Rule of Law The decision reaffirmed that no public authority is above the law and that every administrative decision must be grounded in legality, reason, and fairness.
- Advancing Administrative Justice It reinforced the doctrine that when statutory preconditions are satisfied, discretion transforms into duty. This precedent improved accountability among development authorities like RAJUK and CDA.
- Elevating Natural Justice to a Constitutional Level The Court embedded the right to a fair hearing within constitutional interpretation, making it a fundamental feature of lawful governance.
- Economic Pragmatism By allowing regularisation, the Court avoided destruction of major investment, balancing economic interests with statutory discipline — a hallmark of judicial pragmatism.
- Influence on Future Cases Later rulings such as Ahsan Habib v RAJUK (62 DLR 2009) and Abdul Quader Mollah Properties Ltd. v RAJUK (2013) cited this case as authority for controlling RAJUK’s discretion and enforcing procedural fairness.
- Analytical Evaluation
- Transformation of Administrative Power into Duty: The Court’s interpretation made public administration more predictable and accountable by converting discretion into enforceable duty.
- Integration of Natural Justice with Statutory Interpretation: By harmonising procedural fairness with statutory objectives, the Court ensured that legality and justice coexist in governance.
- Balancing Law and Economic Reality: The application of Section 3B(5)(d) exemplified equitable judicial discretion, avoiding excessive rigidity that could harm national economic interest.
- Curbing Political Influence: By condemning politically motivated administrative acts, the Court reaffirmed the judiciary’s role as a bulwark against executive misuse of power.
Conclusion
Jamuna Builders Ltd. v. Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (57 DLR 762) stands as a milestone in Bangladesh’s administrative jurisprudence. It established that discretionary authority must be exercised legally, fairly, and rationally. The judgment integrated constitutional protections — notably property rights and natural justice — with administrative principles, shaping the future of urban development governance.
By transforming administrative discretion into a rule-bound duty, the Court strengthened citizens’ trust in judicial oversight and reinforced the rule of law. The decision remains a guiding precedent for ensuring that bureaucratic power serves justice, not politics.
Reference(S):
- Jamuna Builders Ltd. v. Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (2005) 57 DLR (HCD) 762.
- Authorised Officer, DIT v. A.W. Malik (1971) 21 DLR 195.
- Bangladesh v Idrisur Rahman (1989) 41 DLR (AD) 233.
- Kazi Nazrul Islam v Bangladesh (1988) 40 DLR 147.
- Abdul Mannan Khan v Government of Bangladesh (2003) 55 DLR (AD) 25.
- Anisminic Ltd. v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147.
- Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case) [1985] AC 374.
- Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40.
- Bangladesh v Shamsuddin Ahmed (1991) 43 DLR (AD) 105.
- Ahsan Habib v RAJUK (2009) 62 DLR 200.
