WRIT PETITION NO. 1043 OF 1999

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
HIGH COURT DIVISION

(SPECIAL ORGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION NO. 1043 OF 1999


In the matter of:
An application under Article 102 of the
Constitution of the People’s Republic of
Bangladesh.
-And-
In the matter of:
Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust
and another
.......Petitioners.
-Versus-
Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of People’s Republic of
Bangladesh and others
.......Respondents.
Mr. M. I. Faruqui with
Mr. Md. Ruhul Quddus,
.......For the Petitioners.
None ....... For Respondents.

Heard on the 8.12.04, 12.12.04 and
Judgment on the 14th December, 2004.
Present :
Mr. Justice Shah Abu Nayeem Muminur Rahman.
And
Mr. Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury.
Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman, J:

This Rule was issued upon the respondent Nos. 1-5 to show cause as to why they should
not be directed (a) to take necessary steps and action to ensure that all licensed
manufacturers of salt do produce, pack and sell salt with Iodine content conforming with
the quality and standard as specified in the Iodine Diseases Prevention Act, 1989; (b) to
revoke licences and take action against respondent Nos. 6-12 and other manufacturers of
iodized salt, those failed to comply with the provisions as enumerated in the said Act; and
(c) to identify the unlicensed and fake manufacturers of edible salt and to take action
against those manufacturers as per provisions of the Act.

The Rule was made returnable within eight weeks from date. The rule was issued on
25.3.1999. It appears from the case record that the case was made ready for hearing on
30.12.01.

The respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 entered appearance by filing separate powers.
No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents
to contest the Rule.

However the learned D.A.G. and the learned A.A.G. assisted the Court since required at
the time of hearing of the rule.

The learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, taking us through the writ petition
and the Annexures thereto, submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is a non-profit NGO,
providing legal assistance in protecting the legal rights of the people, and being
concerned with the sale of edible salt without or inadequate iodine contents, which affects
the ordinary people of this country causing Cretinism and Goitre, two deadly diseases, in

violation of the laws of the country, the petitioners moved this application and obtained
the Rule.

It has been submitted that the respondent No. 1 through Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, responsible for overall public health including control of food, water and other
health related commodities, failed to act as required under the relevant laws of the
country. The respondent No. 2 is responsible for development of salt Industries and for
that matter quality control of edible salt and has control over the administration of the
Bangladesh Small and Cottage Industries Corporation, which is responsible for setting up
of a large number of salt Industries, and the Respondent No. 4, the Bangladesh Standards
and Testing Institution, is responsible for testing and quality control of, amongst others,
iodized salt. Respondent No.3 is a statutory committee constituted under Section 3 of the
Iodine Deficiency Diseases Prevention Act, 1989, with the object, amongst others, to
issue licence for the salt manufacturers as per provisions of said Act, 1989 and the
committee is headed by the Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, a
senior Civil Servant of the country.

Respondent Nos. 6-12 are some of the manufacturers of the Iodized salt, whose product
have been tested and found to be not at per as required by the law. Iodine is an essential
micro nutrient for growth and development of human body and the human body requires
iodine 3-4 grams and same is necessary for normal physical and mental development
during the month before and soon after birth of a body. The development of the brain and
nervous system, which controls physical ability of a person depends on the daily
availability of iodine. Because of deficiency in the consumption of iodine the average
prevalence of Goitre was found around 28.9% as per East Pakistan Nutrition Survey
Report, 1962-64 and the reports on Nutrition Survey in the Rural areas of Bangladesh
conducted in the year 1975-76 and 1981-82 revealed prevalence rate of 10.5%. The
Survey report of 1993 reveals goitre rate around 47.1% and cretinism around 69% of the
population of Bangladesh are because of biochemical iodine deficiency. The learned
Advocate submitted that the disease cretinism is mental and physical retardation due to
lack of thyroid hormone in infancy and this occurs due to deficiency of Iodine in the body
and such iodine may be gathered in the body of a person through other sources but main
avenue for getting iodine in the human body is iodized salt. The learned Advocate stated
that for goitre disease the deficiency of iodine is primarily responsible. It has been
submitted that the government decision banning on sale of edible salt without iodine has
made it mandatory on the manufacturers to produce, distribute and sell only iodized salt
in the market and for which the said Iodine Deficiency Diseases Prevention Act, 1989 has
been promulgated. It has been further submitted that because of Iodine deficiency every
year around 250,000 people are becoming mentally impaired and around 33,000 infants
die within the 1st month of their life and around 41,000 still births occur and in general
for want of iodine the I.Q. of person suffers.

Aforesaid Iodine Deficiency Diseases Prevention Act, 1989, hereinafter referred as Act,
and the Iodine Deficiency Diseases Prevention Rules 1994, hereinafter referred to as the

Rules, provide certain duties upon the officers including the respondents no. 1 to 5 to
ensure production and sale of proper iodized salt in the market. But it appears that the
concerned officers as well as the manufacturers of salt are not discharging their
respective duties and obligations in accordance with law and for which the required
edible iodized salt is not found in the market in general and particularly in the Rural
areas. Since respondent Nos. 1-5 are responsible for the control of manufacture and sale
of edible iodized salt i.e. without their permission no edible salt can be brought to the
market for sale, it is necessary to compel them to perform their respective functions
properly and meticulously and they should ensure that manufacturers of salt do comply
with the provisions of the said act and the defaulters are prosecuted as per law. Section-8
of the Act provides for inspection of the salt manufacturing factories, sale depots,
godown, shops etc. and Rule-9 of the Rules, 1994, speaks about such appointment of
inspectors and their working procedures. Section 2(a) of the Act gives the contents of the
saleable edible iodized salt for its marketing. The consumer Association of Bangladesh
collecting samples of iodized salt produced by 15 Manufacturers from the market got
those tested by the Institute of Nutrition of Food and Science, University of Dhaka, and
the result reveals that none of the iodized salt samples of the said 15 Manufacturers
contained in the required percentage of iodine in the salt, subsequently, the petitioner No.
1 also collected samples of iodized salt produced by 12 different manufacturers in
Bangladesh on random selection basis and those were tested in the Institute of Food,
Science and Technology, an organ of B.C.S.I.R. Dhaka, which found that the iodine
content in the salt samples were not up to the requirement and that the packaging were
not as per requirements of the Act and the Rules; but those salt are being marketed
without any check and control by the respondent nos. 1-5. Such failure on the part of the
respondents in performing their respective duties and functions has caused apprehension
in the mind of the petitioners and particularly considering the health hazard of the newly
born babies, the petitioners have come up with this application to compel the respondent
Nos. 1 to 5 to perform their statutory duties and obligations. The learned Advocate
submitted that the National Salt Committee constituted under Section-3 of the Act
(Respondent No. 3) appears to have failed to discharge its duty and obligations properly
in monitoring as to whether the manufacturers of edible salt are complying with the
provisions of the Act and it taking actions against the defaulting manufacturers, stockists
and sellers as per provisions of the Act and that the respondents also jointly and
individually failed to take reasonable care to maintain proper and adequate monitoring
mechanism on the manufacturers of edible salt and the marketing of such salt and that the
respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 are negligent in performing their statutory obligations as to
the manufacture of iodized salt and in prosecuting the unlicenced and fake as well as
defaulting manufacturers of iodized salt.

Mr. Adilur Rahman, the learned D.A.G. appearing on our request to assist the Court,
submitted that since the respondents did not appear before this Court to answer the Rule,
the allegations made against them in the writ petition cannot be resisted. He further
submitted that in the interest of the health of the people of Bangladesh and for supply of
iodine in proportionate ratio in the human body, the marketing of iodized salt should be

ensured and that for that matter writ petitioners have done a commendable job in taking
up the issue and that respondent Nos. 1-5 need be given proper direction to perform their
statutory obligations properly and diligently in the greater interest of the future generation
i.e. newly born babies of the country. The learned D.A.G. further submitted that the
direction sought for as indicated in the Rule are necessary and cannot be denied.
We have perused the application and considered the submissions of the learned Advocate
for the petitioners and the learned D.A.G.

It appears that no one is against the rule. Rather the Rule has been issued as was felt
necessary to require the persons concern [sic] to rise to the occasion and for that matter to
compel them to act as required by the provision of the Act and the Rules; i.e. to compel
them and to perform their statutory duties and obligations, which appear to be in the
negative side at the present. The law requires production and marketing of iodized salt as
per specification of Section 2(Ka) of the Act and the law has clearly barred
manufacturing and sale of edible salt without Iodine. The manufacturers of non-iodized
or sub-standard iodized salt violating the provisions of the Act and the Rules need be
prosecuted as per law. It appears from the sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1989, that the sale,
distribution and exhibition of edible salt without iodine is a punishable offence/act and
the sale of iodized salt in package should contain name of the manufacturers, the
contents, date of package and the package number, the maximum retail price and a
declaration that the iodine has been mixed with the salt proportionately in accordance
with provision of the Act. Section 9 is the penal provision of the Act, which provides that
if any person violates the provisions of the Act he may suffer imprisonment not more
than three years and fine not more than Tk.5,000/- or both. The Rules, 1994, provide
instructions as to packaging of iodine salt, the registration of manufacturers of Iodine salt;
provision for cancel of registration, inspection of the manufacturing units and the
requirement of sending samples of salt to the laboratories listed in the Rules, for analysis
of the iodized salt. The functioning and duty of the National Salt Committee (to be
appointed under the Act) and the authority to file case by the inspectors have been
provided in the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
Considering the statements made in the application, submissions of the learned advocates
and the materials on record, we find substance in the Rule. Since the respondents did
neither appear to contest the rule nor controverted any of the statements of fact and
allegations made in the writ petition, it is deemed that the allegations made against them
are true and correct. Thus it appears that the respondent Nos. 1-5 are not performing their
duties and obligations properly and diligently for which the general people in general and
the infants in particular have been exposed to the Iodine Deficiency Diseases and the
respondents are responsible for the consequences and therefore they need be directed to
act in accordance with law and to be vigilant in performing their respective duties and
obligations and as the respondent Nos. 6-12 appear to be defaulters and their produced
edible salt do not contain proportionate quantity of iodine as required by the law and
hence, they are liable to be prosecuted in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute without any order as to costs. The respondent
Nos. 1-5 are directed to perform their respective functions ensuring compliance of the
provisions of the Iodine Deficiency Diseases Prevention Act, 1989 and the Rules 1994 so
that the iodized salt produced and marketed for consumption of the people do comply
with the provisions of sections 2, 4 and 6 of the said Act, 1989 and the violators thereof
be prosecuted under provisions of Section 9 of the said Act, 1989. They are further
directed to ensure that the unregistered edible salt manufacturers are not allowed to
produce, market and sell salt for human consumption and such unregistered
manufacturers of salt be brought to book and be prosecuted in accordance with the
provision of law. The respondent Nos. 2 and 5 are also directed to prepare and submit the
list of registered manufacturers/producers of the edible iodized salt in Bangladesh and the
respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are directed to collect the samples of edible salt put in the
market for sale for general consumption and to submit analysis reports of such salt twice
a year i.e. for the period ending on 30th June and 31st December, respectively, to the
Registrar, Supreme Court of Bangladesh, within 15 days thereafter without fail with a
copy thereof endorsed to the respondent no. 3, who is directed to ensure taking of actions
as per law against the defaulters on the basis of such reports. The analysis reports are to
be submitted initially for five(s) years effective from 2005 A.D.
The learned Deputy Attorney General will also notify the respondents about the
directions herein above given. Let a copy of this judgment and order be supplied to the
learned Deputy Attorney General for compliance.
S. A. N. M. Rahman.
Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury, J:
I agree.
M. I. Chowdhury.