IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT JUDGE, FARIDPUR.

TITLE SUIT NO. OF 2009.

Md. Siddiqur Rahman

Son of late Alhaj Alauddin Sheikh

Proprietor of M/s Md. Siddiqur Rahman

Station Road

P.S. Kotwali

District: Faridpur.

…PLAINTIFF.

-versus-

1. Abdul Matin Molla

Son of Majid Molla

Proprietor of M/s Matin Traders

Village: Vatillakshmipur

P.O. Faridpur

Upazilla: Faridpur Sadar

 2

P.S. Kotwali

District: Faridpur

2. Upazilla Nirbahi Officer

Upazilla Faridpur Sadar

P.S. Kotwali

District: Faridpur

3. Bangladesh Inland Water

Transport Authority (BIWTA)

Represented by its Chairman

Motijheel Commercial Area

Dhaka 1000.

...DEFENDANTS.

SUIT FOR DECLARATION

SUIT VALUED AT TK. 5,000.00 (Five Thousand Only)

The plaintiff above-named states as -

FOLLOWS:-

1. That the plaintiff is a businessman and a law abiding citizen of

Bangladesh. He is the proprietor of M/s Md. Siddiqur Rahman, a firm

 3

which is registered with the Government as a first class contractor. The

plaintiff is the importer and supplier of all kinds of construction materials

including sand, stone and chips. He also has experience in the collection of

tolls by operation of a number of Ghats all over Bangladesh. The plaintiff

participated in and was adjudged the highest bidder in the 8 th Re-Tender for

the lease of “Faridpur C&B/Haji Bari Ghat” situated on the Padma River in

the District of Faridpur (hereinafter referred to as the said Ghat). The

plaintiff is the only lawful and authorised toll collector in relation to the

loading/unloading of goods and the berthing of vessels in the said Ghat.

2. That the defendant No.1 is one Abdul Matin Molla. He is the

proprietor of M/s Matin Traders. He is the toll collector in relation to the

Hat/Bazar on the said Ghat. The defendant No.2 is the Upazilla Nirbahi

Officer, Sadar Upazilla, District: Faridpur. The defendant No.3 is the

Bangladesh Inland Water Development Authority, represented by its

Chairman.

3. That the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants for

a declaration as to his right to collect tolls for the operation of the said

Ghat. He is the only person authorised by the defendant No.3 (i.e. the

Bangladesh Water Development Authority) to collect tolls in relation to

 4

loading/unloading of goods and berthing of vessels at the said Ghat.

Although the lease of the said Ghat has been awarded to the plaintiff, the

defendant No.1 has been collecting tolls in an illegal and unauthorized

manner from vessels owners and operators. The plaintiff is the only person

authorised by the defendant No.3 (i.e. the Bangladesh Water Development

Authority) to collect tolls in relation to loading/unloading of goods and

berthing of vessels at the said Ghat. No other person has been authorised to

collect tolls on the said Ghat by the defendant No.3. Hence, the plaintiff has

filed the present suit.

4. That in July 2008, the defendant No.3 issued a Notice of Tender

inviting offers/bids for the lease of the said Ghat in the District of Faridpur

for the purpose of toll collection. The lease was advertised to be for the

Year 2008-2009. The tender was subject to a number of terms and

conditions including the Ijara Nitimala. Tender documents were stated to be

available from designated places upon payment of Tk.750.00. Although

there were a number of participants in the Tender, no one was awarded the

lease of the said Ghat as the amounts offered were too low. The plaintiff did

not participate in the first tender.

5. That the first tender not having been awarded to any of the bidders, a
 5

second tender was also held in respect of the lease of the said Ghat.

However, no one was awarded the lease of the Ghat. Hence, third, fourth,

fifth, sixth and seventh Re-Tender Notices were issued. However, once

again no one was awarded the lease of the said Ghat in the third, fourth,

fifth, sixth and seventh Re-Tenders.

6. That the defendant No.3 thereafter issued the Notice of the eighth

Re-Tender. The plaintiff participated in the eighth Re-Tender by purchasing

the necessary tender documents at Tk. 750.00. In the said Tender

Documents, the estimated value of the lease of the said Ghat for the year

2008-2009 (according to the estimate of the defendant No.3) was stated to

be Tk. 47,94,521.00. The plaintiff bid Tk. 64,75,303.00 for the lease of the

said Ghat (i.e. Tk. 16,80,782 more than the estimated value of the defendant

No.3). The plaintiff submitted earnest money comprising of 25% of the bid

amount, 5% Advance Income Tax and 15% Value Added Tax. All

necessary documents and papers were also submitted in accordance with

the Ijara Nitimala and the Tender Documents.

7. That the bids of all the participating bidders on the eighth re-Tender

were opened in their presence on 21.08.2008. This was done in compliance

with Clause 26(Ga) of the Ijara Nitimala. The bids were announced in the
 6

presence of all the bidders and the plaintiff was adjudged the highest bidder

having bid Tk. 64,75,303.00. A Notification of the Award dated 28.02.2008

was issued in his favour informing the plaintiff that the defendant No.3 had

accepted the amount offered by him.

8. That pursuant to the Notification of the Award dated 28.08.2008, the

plaintiff paid 40% of the entire bid amount in accordance with clause

22(ka)(2) of the Ijara Nitimala. The plaintiff having bid Tk. 64,75,303.00,

40% of such amount was Tk. 25,90,122.00. This amount was paid in its

entirety to the defendant No.3 on 10.09.2008 by 4 (four) cheques. 5%

Advance Income Tax and 15% Value Added Tax had already been paid to

the defendant at the time of submitting the bid.

9. That the plaintiff also submitted a Bank Guarantee dated 29.09.2008

for Tk. 6,47,531.00 (representing 10% of the amount) to the Chairman of

the defendant No.3. This Bank Guarantee was issued by United

Commercial Bank Limited as security in accordance with clause 22(ka)(2)

of the Ijara Nitimala.

10. That thereafter the defendant No.3 having been satisfied that the

plaintiff had paid 40% of the bid amount and 10% Security Money, issued a
 7

Work Order bearing memo No. Aricha-Ijara-Farid/50/466 dated

31.08.2008. In the said Work Order the details of all the aforementioned

payments were admitted. In the said Work Order, necessary directions were

also given for the handing over of the said Ghat to the plaintiff at 12.01

A.M on 31.08.2008. As such the plaintiff was the sole person lawfully

authorised to collect tolls in relation to loading/unloading of goods and

berthing of vessels at the said Ghat.

11. That pursuant to the Work Order dated 31.08.2008, the plaintiff was

physically handed over the said Ghat on the same date (i.e. 31.08.2008).

The plaintiff commenced his operation and collection of tolls on the said

Ghat on 31.08.2008 immediately after the handing over the same.

12. That on 21.10.2008 the plaintiff paid a further Tk. 9,71,296.00 in

relation to the lease of the said Ghat. On 14.12.2008 a further amount of

Tk. 5,00,000.00 was paid in relation to the lease to the said Ghat. The

remaining amount of the lease money are being paid in accordance with

law. The total amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant No.3

(Bangladesh Water Development Authority) in relation to the said Ghat till

date is as follows:-
 8

Sl. No Description of Payment Amount Paid in Taka

1. 40% of bid amount paid 25,90,122.00
upon Notification of the
Award
2. 10% Security Money 6,47,53100
3. 1st Installment 9,71,296.00
2. 2nd Installment 5,00,000.00
Total Amount Paid 47,08,949.00

No payments in relation to the said Ghat are due from the plaintiff in

accordance with law. The remaining the lease payments will be made in

accordance with law when the same are due.

13. That as the said Ghat was not properly dredged at the time of

handing over, the plaintiff at his own cost dredged the same at a cost of

Tk.29,00,000.00 (Taka twenty lacs). The plaintiff also for the purpose of

effective operation of the said Ghat bought adjoining lands from a number

of landowners in the area for a total amount of Tk.22,25,000.00 (Taka

Twenty two lacs and twenty-five thousand). As such the plaintiff has made

considerable expense in preparing the said Ghat for operation and toll

collection.
 9

14. That while the plaintiff was carrying out his operations in relation to

the said Ghat by collecting tolls, the defendant No.2 (Upazilla Nirabahi

Officer, Sadar Faridpur) floated a Tender for the collection of tolls from the

Hat/Bazar on the Faridpur C&B/Haji Bazar Ghat. The defendant No.1 was

awarded the lease of the Hat/Bazar on the said Ghat. In this regard an

agreement was executed between the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2

on 14 April 2009 for the collection of tolls in relation to Hat/Bazar on the

said Ghat.

15. That under the Agreement the defendant No.1 is only permitted to

collect tolls in relation to the Hat/Bazar. He is not authorised or permitted

to collect tolls in relation to the use of the said Ghat by vessels or for the

loading and unloading of goods on to vessels. Only the plaintiff is

authorised to collect tolls in relation to the use of the said Ghat by vessels.

16. That although the defendant No.1 is only permitted under the terms

of his Agreement to collect tolls for the operation of a Hat/Bazar, the

defendant No.1 is also collecting tolls from vessels/boats for the use of the

said Ghat. The defendant No.1 is also in the process of building a toll booth

for collecting tolls from various vessels using the said Ghat. It may be

mentioned that under clause 12 of the Agreement dated 14.04.2009, the

 10

defendant No.1 is not permitted to construct any structure. However, the

defendant No.1 is attempting to build a toll booth solely to collect tolls

from vessel/boat owners. The defendant No.1 has no authority to collect

tolls from vessels/boats using the said Ghat or for the loading and

unloading of vessels at the said Ghat.

17. That in such situation the plaintiff vide his letter dated 28.05.2009

informed the defendant No.3 that the defendant No.1 was collecting tolls in

an unauthorized manner from vessels using the said Ghat. The plaintiff also

informed the defendant No.3 that the defendant No.1 was attempting to

construct a toll booth on the said Ghat for the purpose of collecting tolls.

However, till date no action has been taken by the defendant No.3.

18. That the plaintiff vide his letter dated 31.05.2009 has also informed

the Officer-in-Charge of P.S. Kotwali, District: Faridpur of the

unauthorized and illegal activities of the defendant No.1 in charging vessels

tolls in relation to the use of the said Ghat. However, the Police have not

taken any action to protect the legal interest of the plaintiff. The Plaintiff

has also made G.D. Entry in this regard.

 11

19. That due to the unlawful activities of the defendant No.1, there is

confusion at the said Ghat. The defendant No.1 is representing to

vessel/boat owners and operators that he is the lawful collector of tolls.

Vessel owners and operators are confused as to the identity of the genuine

collector of tolls. Moreover, the actions of the defendant No.1 are affecting

the business of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is unable to charge tolls from

vessels that have already been tricked into paying tolls to the defendant

No.1.

20. That as stated above only the plaintiff is permitted to collect tolls

from vessels and for the loading and unloading of goods as he has been

awarded the lease of the said Ghat by the defendant No.3 (Bangladesh

Inland Water Authority). No other person is permitted to charge and collect

tolls for the loading/unloading of goods on to vessels and for the berthing of

vessels at the said Ghat.

21. That the plaintiff is in possession and control of the said Ghat for the

purpose of toll collection. The defendant No.1 is not in control or in

possession of the ghat premises. The defendant No.1 collects tolls from

vessels operators/owners unlawfully and unathorisedly behind the back of

the plaintiff.
 12

22. That in such circumstances the plaintiff has come before this

Hon’ble Court for a declaration as to his right and entitlement to charge and

collect tolls for use of the said Ghat for the purpose of loading and

unloading goods and for the berthing of vessels.

23. That the plaintiff is the only lawful and authorised leaseholder of the

said Ghat. This lease of the said Ghat is renewable and can be renewed

upon payment of necessary fees and rates. The lease shall be renewed by

the plaintiff by making appropriate payments.

24. That the cause of action of the suit arose on 20.04.2009 when the

defendant No.1 started collecting tolls from vessel owners and operators at

the Faridpur C&B / Haji Bari Ghat for the loading and unloading of goods

and for berthing of vessels, on 25.05.2009, when no action was taken

against the defendant No.1 for unlawful toll collection despite a compliant

having been made to the defendant No.3 and the cause of action is

continuing.
 13

25. That the cause of action of the suit arose within the jurisdiction of

this Hon’ble Court. The defendant No.1 is carrying out his unlawful toll

collection in relation to the use of the said Ghat at the Faridpur C&B/Haji

Bari Ghat which is in P.S. Kotwali, District: Faridpur, i.e. within the

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Moreover, the place of business of the

defendant No.1 is also in P.S. Kotwali. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 also

have offices within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and as such this

Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

26. That for the purposes of jurisdiction of the suit, there being no

objective basis for valuation, the suit has been valued at Tk. 5,000.00 (Taka

Two Five Thousand). The suit being for declaration as to the right and

entitlement of the plaintiff to charge and collect tolls in relation to

loading/loading of goods and for berthing of vessels at the said Ghat and for

a declaration that the defendant No.1 is not entitled to collect tolls, fixed

court fees of Tk. 400.00 has been fixed on the plaint.

The plaintiff therefore prays:-

(a) For a declaration that the plaintiff

has the right to charge and collect

 14

tolls in relation to

loading/unloading of goods and

berthing of vessels at the Faridpur

C&B / Haji Bari Ghat at District:

Faridpur.

(b) For a declaration that the

defendants are not entitled to

charge and collect tolls in relation

to loading/unloading of goods and

berthing of vessels at the Faridpur

C&B / Haji Bari Ghat at District:

Faridpur.

(c) For costs against the defendants.

 15

(d) Any other relief or reliefs that the

plaintiff may be entitled to in law

and equity;

And for this act of kindness the plaintiff as in duty bound shall ever

pray.

VERIFICATION

That the statements made in the plaint

are true to my knowledge and belief and

matters of record and in witness whereof,

I sign this verification on this the

……….th day of June, 2009 sitting in

the Chamber of my learned Advocate.

_________________________________
Md. Siddiqur Rahman
Station Road, Faridpur