Prosecution Of Illegal Stone Extraction In Sylhet

07 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Legal Background

Illegal stone extraction in Sylhet (Bangladesh) is a major environmental and economic concern. The extraction often occurs in riverbeds, hills, or quarries without permits and violates:

Environment Conservation Act, 1995 (ECA) – regulates environmentally sensitive areas.

Mines and Minerals (Control & Development) Act, 1992 – regulates extraction of mineral resources.

Ecologically Critical Area (ECA) Notifications – certain zones like Jaflong and Dawki are protected due to ecological significance.

Local administrative regulations – extraction permits, machine operation permissions, and zoning for crushers.

Prosecution can be through:

Criminal cases against individual extractors under relevant laws.

Administrative enforcement such as seizure of machines, bans, or disconnection of utilities.

Writ petitions by NGOs or citizens to compel government authorities to enforce the law.

2. Detailed Case Analysis

Case 1: Hill Cutting at Sylhet Agricultural University (2015)

Facts:
The university cut several hillocks (tilas) on campus to construct buildings. The petitioner claimed this violated the ECA and threatened ecological balance.

Legal Issues:

Whether the cutting of hillocks without environmental clearance constitutes illegal extraction.

Whether the court can direct preservation of the hills through status-quo orders.

Outcome:
The High Court issued a Rule nisi, directing the university to maintain the status-quo pending further investigation.

Significance:
This case established that hill/stone removal without clearance is prosecutable, and judicial intervention can protect ecological sites even on institutional lands.

Case 2: High Court Order on Stone Crusher Zone (2017)

Facts:
Numerous stone crusher units were operating in Sylhet without proper zoning, causing environmental and public health issues.

Legal Issues:

Whether unauthorized stone crushers violate environmental norms and local zoning regulations.

Responsibility of authorities to relocate illegal units.

Outcome:
The court ordered creation of a designated stone crusher zone and relocation of illegal units.

Significance:
This case highlighted regulation of extraction infrastructure as part of prosecution. The ruling also emphasized administrative responsibility in preventing illegal extraction.

Case 3: Illegal Stone Extraction from Protected Quarries (2025)

Facts:
Environmental lawyers filed a petition against officials for failing to prevent illegal stone extraction in protected quarries in Sylhet.

Legal Issues:

Failure of administrative authorities to enforce the ECA.

Responsibility of officials for illegal extraction under environmental law.

Outcome:
The High Court issued a Rule nisi, requiring officials to submit a detailed report and plan for enforcement.

Significance:
This case reinforced the principle that state officials can be held accountable for non-enforcement of laws against illegal extraction.

Case 4: Large-Scale Stone Looting in Jaflong ECA (2025)

Facts:
A gang allegedly extracted 40,000 cubic feet of stone illegally from the Jaflong ECA.

Legal Issues:

Extraction from an ecologically protected area without permit.

Determination of liability for multiple unnamed actors involved in organized extraction.

Outcome:
A criminal case was filed against unidentified persons. Arrests and prosecutions were initiated but pending in court.

Significance:
This demonstrates criminal liability for large-scale organized stone extraction, particularly in ecologically sensitive areas.

Case 5: Administrative Seizure of Machines (2021 & 2025)

Facts:

In 2021, authorities destroyed 50 illegal stone-crushing machines in Bichnakandi, Sylhet.

In 2025, 300 stone-crushing units had electricity cut off to prevent extraction.

Legal Issues:

Operating without clearance violates environmental and mineral extraction laws.

Administrative power to seize or disable machines to enforce compliance.

Outcome:
Machines were seized or destroyed, and utility disconnections prevented further illegal extraction.

Significance:
Shows administrative enforcement as a tool of prosecution, especially when criminal prosecutions are slow.

Case 6: Ban on Stone and Sand Extraction (2025)

Facts:
The Sylhet district administration issued a complete ban on stone and sand extraction, transport, and sale in certain areas to protect ecological and tourism zones.

Legal Issues:

Preventive administrative measures under environmental and land laws.

Responsibility of authorities to enforce bans and prosecute violators.

Outcome:
The ban was issued, making violations punishable and signaling intent for prosecution.

Significance:
This illustrates preventive law enforcement measures complementing direct criminal prosecution.

3. Summary Table of Cases

Case	Year	Legal Issue	Outcome	Significance
Hill Cutting at Sylhet Agricultural University	2015	Illegal hill/stone removal	Status-quo order	Judicial protection of ecological sites
Stone Crusher Zone	2017	Unauthorized crusher operation	Zone creation	Enforcement of extraction infrastructure regulations
Protected Quarry Extraction	2025	Failure of authorities to prevent illegal extraction	Rule nisi against officials	Administrative accountability
Large-Scale Looting, Jaflong ECA	2025	Extraction from ECA	Criminal case filed	Criminal liability for organized gangs
Administrative Machine Seizure	2021 & 2025	Operation without clearance	Machines destroyed/disconnected	Administrative enforcement method
Ban on Extraction & Trade	2025	Unauthorized extraction/trade	Ban imposed	Preventive enforcement and prosecution support