The High Court once again on Tuesday asked the chief controller (export and import) and the chairman of Chittagong Port Authority to inform the court by August 16 of the quantity of soya bean oil imported in six months and its price.
The president and secretary of the Vegetable Oil Refiners and Vanaspati Manufacturers' Association were asked to inform the court of the price details of different brands of soya bean oil sold in six months.
The court also asked the authorities to explain their failure in replying to the rule that on November 28, 2010 asked them to explain in two weeks why their inaction to stop increase in soya bean oil prices would not be declared illegal.
The secretaries to the commerce and finance ministries, Trading Corporation of Bangladesh chairman, chief controller of exports and imports, Chittagong Port Authority chairman, inspector general of police, Rapid Action Battalion director general, Directorate of National Consumer Rights Protection director general and the president and secretary of the Vegetable Oil Refiners and Vanaspati Manufacturers' Association were also asked to reply to the rule.
The bench of Justice AHM Shamsuddin Chowdhury and Justice Sheikh Md Zakir Hossain in November 2010 issued the rule and the directive after hearing a public interest litigation writ petition filed by six Supreme Court lawyers on behalf of the Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh, challenging the government's inaction and failure in checking the price increase of cooking oil.
The same court on July 24, 2011 summoned the Trading Corporation of Bangladesh chairman, chief controller of export and import, Chittagong Port Authority chairman and the director general of National Consumer Rights Protection to explain their failure in stopping hoarding and profiteering on cooking oil on August 9.
The respondents on Tuesday appeared in court and offered apologies for their failure to comply with the rule.
The court asked them to explain their statement in writing on August 16.
The petitioners contended that the authorities had failed in their responsibilities.
The petitioners' counsel Manzill Murshid said that the respondents had failed to comply with the order the court had issued in 2010.
He said, 'If the respondents had complied with the previous order, unscrupulous traders would not have been able to create an artificial crisis of supply now to increase cooking oil prices by exploiting its demand before Ramadan.
The lawyer told the court that the retailers were charging Tk 123 a litre for packed soya bean oil against the price of f Tk 109 as set by the government. He also showed a one-litre bottle of the Rupchanda brand soya bean oil to prove his point.
On July 20, the government set the maximum retail price of sugar at Tk 65 a kilogram and cooking oil at Tk 109 a litre. The government had the price of non-packed palm oil at Tk 99 a kilogram.
The prices were set on a decision the commerce ministry made at a meeting with sugar and cooking oil refiners.
The petitioners' lawyer said, 'It is the duty of the controller of imports and exports to protect consumers' rights.'
Source : New Age
