Md. Kamal Uddin:
Kalurghat Ferry Ghat is an important support for the travel, business and trade of the people of the southern part of Chittagong. For many years, despite losses, limitations and various adversities, this ferry has kept the movement of the common people alive. Especially for the people on both sides of the Karnaphuli River, it is not just a waterborne communication system, but a reality deeply involved in life and livelihood, business, education, medical care and social activities. But currently, a complex legal and administrative situation has arisen around the new lease of this important ferry ghat, which has given rise to various new questions. After the tender notice regarding the lease of Kalurghat Ferry Ghat was published in a national daily on April 30, 2026, objections were raised on the matter. Writ Petition No. 5977 of 2026 was filed in the Hon’ble High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh under Article 102 of the Constitution, questioning the validity of the tender. The writ petition alleged that some aspects of the tender process raised legal and administrative questions, which required reconsideration. After the initial hearing of the writ, on May 11, 2026, the High Court Division issued an interim stay order on the said tender notice and related activities. At the same time, the court issued a Rule Nisi to the concerned authorities and asked them why the tender notice should not be declared invalid. Through this court’s direction, the subsequent tender-related activities are temporarily in question and the need to take a cautious stance towards the administration comes to the fore. The lessee company, Amrin & Brothers, has claimed that a certified copy of the court order has been submitted to the concerned officer of the Roads and Highways (SOWZ) Department, the office of the Executive Engineer and the necessary administrative offices in due time. On May 20, 2026, a written application was made to the Executive Engineer, Roads and Highways Department, Rahmatganj, Chittagong, formally requesting that all tender-related activities be suspended while keeping the court’s order in effect and the current ferry operation be maintained as normal. The application clearly mentions three things – first, all subsequent administrative activities under the published tender should be suspended immediately; second, the matter of the court’s suspension should be informed to all concerned departments and officials; third, the ongoing ferry operations should be maintained as normal while the court’s order is in force, so that public suffering is not caused. Meanwhile, the lessee’s side alleges that despite the court’s ban, inconsistencies have been seen in some administrative activities in the real situation and questions have been raised as to whether Executive Engineer Moslem Uddin has taken the necessary steps to properly reflect the court’s order. However, it is noteworthy that this allegation has not yet been proven through any court, investigation agency or government report. This is considered an allegation and it is difficult to get a complete picture of the matter without the official statement of the concerned official. In this context, to get the statement on the allegations, read the Daily Tourist, Chatral Chitra, Daily Bhorer Awaaz,It has been claimed that representatives of Soomaal-er Alo and Kotha TV tried to contact Executive Engineer Moslem Uddin on his mobile phone several times. But he did not answer the phone. As a result, it was not possible to collect his statement or explanation regarding the complaint. Many believe that it would have been easier to evaluate the matter in a more balanced way if the opinion of the concerned officer was available. On the other hand, the lessee company Amirin & Brothers has claimed that they have faced major financial losses due to this complication. They had to bear the salaries of employees, maintenance of the vessel, fuel, administrative expenses, infrastructure development, security measures and other related expenses to operate the ferry. But they have alleged that they have suffered financially due to the disruption of expected activities due to administrative uncertainty and legal complications. According to the lessee’s statement, they want to move forward by following the rule of law with full respect for the court. They claim that the concerned authorities should review the legal aspects and follow the court’s instructions properly before taking any administrative decision while the court’s ban is in effect. On the one hand, this will reduce administrative complexity, and on the other hand, public confidence in the rule of law will be strengthened. According to relevant analysts, if an administrative decision is taken by bypassing the court order or creating a confusing situation regarding it, it can create even greater legal complications in the future. Because compliance with the court’s instructions is not only a legal obligation—it is also a question of state discipline, administrative accountability, and respect for the judiciary. Finally, the question arises—where the court has given an interim stay order taking the matter into consideration, are all the parties concerned taking sufficient precautions? Isn’t it the responsibility of the administration to be more proactive in implementing the court order? And should the uncertainty about the future of an important ferry terminal related to public interest be prolonged? Kalurghat ferry terminal is not just a matter of a lease or tender; it is related to the daily lives of thousands of people. Therefore, the expectation from all concerned is that an acceptable solution to this crisis will be found through showing due respect to the courts, adhering to the rule of law, seriously considering the issue of sanctions, and making legal and responsible decisions.They want to move forward by following the rule of law with full respect for the court. They demand that before taking any administrative decision while the court’s ban is in force, the concerned authorities should review the legal aspects and follow the court’s instructions properly. On the one hand, this will reduce administrative complexity, and on the other hand, public confidence in the rule of law will be strengthened. According to relevant analysts, if any administrative decision is taken by bypassing the court’s order or creating a confusing situation about it, it can create even greater legal complications in the future. Because compliance with the court’s instructions is not only a legal obligation—it is also a question of state discipline, administrative accountability, and respect for the judiciary. Finally, the question arises—where the court has given an interim stay order after considering the matter, are all the parties concerned taking sufficient precautions? Isn’t it the responsibility of the administration to be more proactive in implementing the court’s order? And should the uncertainty about the future of an important ferry terminal related to public interest be prolonged? Kalurghat Ferry Terminal is not just a matter of a lease or tender; it is related to the daily lives of thousands of people. Therefore, the expectation from all concerned is that an acceptable solution to this crisis will be found through showing due respect to the court, adhering to the rule of law, considering the issue of sanctions seriously, and taking legal and responsible decisions.They want to move forward by following the rule of law with full respect for the court. They demand that before taking any administrative decision while the court’s ban is in force, the concerned authorities should review the legal aspects and follow the court’s instructions properly. On the one hand, this will reduce administrative complexity, and on the other hand, public confidence in the rule of law will be strengthened. According to relevant analysts, if any administrative decision is taken by bypassing the court’s order or creating a confusing situation about it, it can create even greater legal complications in the future. Because compliance with the court’s instructions is not only a legal obligation—it is also a question of state discipline, administrative accountability, and respect for the judiciary. Finally, the question arises—where the court has given an interim stay order after considering the matter, are all the parties concerned taking sufficient precautions? Isn’t it the responsibility of the administration to be more proactive in implementing the court’s order? And should the uncertainty about the future of an important ferry terminal related to public interest be prolonged? Kalurghat Ferry Terminal is not just a matter of a lease or tender; it is related to the daily lives of thousands of people. Therefore, the expectation from all concerned is that an acceptable solution to this crisis will be found through showing due respect to the court, adhering to the rule of law, considering the issue of sanctions seriously, and taking legal and responsible decisions.