![Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque vs Bangladesh (The Radiated Milk Case) [1996]](https://thecasesummary.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Mohiuddin-Farooque-vs-Bangladesh-The-Radiated-Milk-Case-FP-EN.png)
Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque vs Bangladesh (The Radiated Milk Case)
Citation : 48 DLR (1996) 438
Jurisdiction : Bangladesh
Petitioner : Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque
Respondents : Bangladesh (represented by Secretary, Ministry of Commerce; Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology; Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission; Collector of Customs) and Danish Condensed Milk Bangladesh
Facts :
Danish Condensed Milk Bangladesh Limited imported 500 metric tons of skimmed milk powder from Datraco BV, Netherlands, in three consignments. One sample of the 125 metric tons of milk powder in the final consignment was tested by the Radiation Testing Laboratory (RTL) Chittagong of the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission. The test result indicated the presence of 133 Bq radiation per kg, which was well above the approved radiation level of 95 Bq per kg. Accordingly, the Director of RTL Chittagong issued a certificate stating that the milk powder of the last consignment should not be marketed in public interest. Subsequently, 5 samples from the 5 containers of the consignment were sent to the Commission in Dhaka for further testing on the instance of SGS, a survey agency. One of the samples was found to have a radiation level of 15 Bq per kg. Thus, 5 more samples were collected for retesting. This prompted an objection from the Director of RTL Chittagong against any further testing. Accordingly, the Collector of Customs directed the importer to send back the milk powder to the exporter for violating the approved amount of radiation. Yet, the Secretary of the Commission asked the Collector of Customs to collect random samples from each container in the presence of the Director of RTL, Chittagong.
The exporter sued the Government (Secretary, Ministry of Commerce), the Collector of Customs and the importer in the 3rd Court of Assistant Judge, Chittagong, praying for the order of sending back the goods without further retesting to be declared illegal, and for a mandatory injunction for retesting the samples. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chittagong, allowed a police prayer for seizure of the consignment. Samples were collected for the final retesting. RTL, Chittagong found 5 samples from one container to be above the approved limit, while the Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, Savar of the Commission found 10 samples from 2 containers to be above the approved limit.
The petitioner, the Secretary General of Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association, filed a writ petition in public interest contending that the import of such food product is injurious to health and a threat to the right to life of the people. He also contended that the activities of the Government officers in handling the matter were contrary to their responsibility under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the respondents should be directed to send back the goods at once. The respondent-importer contended that the radiation level of the entire consignment was not above the approved level and thus, the entire consignment should not be sent back. It was also contended that as a suit was still pending in the subordinate court, the HCD should not determine any question of fact in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Issues :
1. Whether the import of food with higher than the approved level of radioactivity is a violation of the right to life under Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution.
2. Whether repeated testing of the samples was within the authority of the Government officers.
3. Whether the HCD can decide on the matter sub judice before the subordinate court.
Decisions :
The HCD relied on several foreign judicial interpretations to expand the scope of the right to life under Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution. Kazi Ebadul Hoque J stated,
“…it appears that right to life is not only limited to the protection of life and limbs but extends to the protection of health and strength of the workers, their means of livelihood, enjoyment of pollution-free water and air, bare necessaries of life, facilities for education, development of children, maternity benefit, free movement, maintenance and improvement of public health by creating and sustaining conditions congenial to good health and ensuring quality of life consistent with human dignity.”
It was held that although Article 18(1) could not be judicially enforced, it could still be used to interpret the meaning of right to life under Articles 31 and 32. Right to life includes “protection of health and normal longevity of an ordinary human being.” Importing and marketing of contaminated food thus threatens the right to life, and it is the obligation of the State to prevent the use of such contaminated food.
The HCD could not find any authority for the Government officers to retest the fresh samples repeatedly even after the first certificate was issued by the Director of RTL, Chittagong. In addition, the Court found that the initial process of testing a sample from only one container was not foolproof, as the contaminated samples could have very easily escaped testing. Thus, the Court directed the formulation of a foolproof method of collection and testing of the samples, and until then, directed the Collector of Customs to send samples from every container for testing to RTL Chittagong, and not to send any sample for any further testing subsequently.
However, the HCD refused to make any order as to sending the goods back to the exporter, as that matter was pending before the subordinate court, and also refused to influence the subordinate court’s decision in any way.
However, the HCD directed the Government and the Collector of Customs to contest the suit of the exporter by filing a written statement and producing all relevant evidence and materials before the subordinate court to prevent the plaintiff-exporter from getting an ex parte decree..
Relevant Legal Principle :
Res Sub Judice: Under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a later suit cannot be tried when the same matter is already pending in an earlier suit between the same parties, involving the same main issue, before a competent court. It prevents parallel trials and conflicting decisions.
Relevant Laws :
- The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh
- Article : 18(1), 31, 32
Author :
1. S.M. Monzur Morshed
Note : The Case Summary is a platform by the law students, for the law students. We aim to summarize the facts and decisions of various important cases in both Bangla and English with utmost caution. However, this platform is in no way a replacement for going through the complete judgements by the law students and we discourage any learner from relying on case summaries alone. Thank you
