Search

Introduction: The beginning of forest laws in Bangladesh can be traced back to the 18th– 19th century when​ the entire Indian subcontinent was controlled by British colonialism. Over time, these laws have been reformed, and repealed, as per the demands of time and environment, albeit, both effectively and ineffectively. Forests play a central role in the history of many civilizations as places, as renewable resources, and as symbols of nature to which humans belong and have migrated from. The impact of human activities on forests has been a common topic of discussion and research. However, it is quite rare to find existing literature on how the degrading health of the forest in turn affects human lives and health. Over the last couple of decades, a direct link between the health of the forest and human have seldom been threaded out. This interdisciplinary and interconnected issue between the social and natural sciences evinces how the most vulnerable and socially and economically backward communities and people suffer the first, the most, and the worst consequences of environmental degradation. This blog overlooks the laws and policies crucial in regulating and maintaining forests in Bangladesh and further explores the impact on human health of the implementation, or lack thereof, of these laws and policies. Connecting Forests, Laws, State, and Human: Bangladesh has numerous laws and policies regulating the forest and environment, incorporating the principles of multiple international conventions and protocols in order to safeguard forests and wildlife. Some of the provisions in the existing laws and policies below highlight the evolution and importance of forest protection. In 1894, the colonial British government announced the first official forest strategy for the Indo-Pak region, which provided the basis for creating laws and regulations for forest management and exploitation during this time. Even the rate of forest exploitation increased their authority, with little significance given to resource conservation or preservation. This strategy primarily prioritised crop production, and encouraged the quick conversion of forest areas to agricultural use, and served as the foundation for the legal classification of key forest-related regulations, and the first Forest Act of 1927. While these regulations assisted in bringing forest management under government oversight, their primary goal was to increase forest revenue by appointing feudal lords to manage various forest zones. Unfortunately, despite the advent of institutional management, the state’s economic interests continued to dominate its activities; the overall forest health was not enhanced. This foundation of economic exploitation was grounded deeply within the minds of the people. Thus, the aim of this law, which was to codify the laws ‘relating to forests, the transit of forest produce and the duty leviable on timber and other forest produce, was achieved. In 1950, the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 (East Bengal Act) was enacted with the objective of putting tenants under the direct supervision of the government and destroying landlord power of private individuals over their tenants. The Act allowed tenants to keep homesteads and agricultural areas, but not forested lands. Many private holdings, including forestland, were deemed not retainable as a result of these stipulations. Under this law, the tenants were not permitted to keep forested lands. In order to avoid government claims over their private forested lands, the villagers cut down their forests to build villages, resulting in losing forest land. This law, while effective in fulfilling its objective, was not a necessary law on forestation and conservation. On the other hand, the Acquisition of Waste Land Act, 1950 (East Bengal Act), allows the government to acquire uncultivated private land for public use, including afforestation. In 1955, Pakistan published its first national forest policy, under which Bangladesh's (at the time, East Pakistan) woods were managed. This policy successfully introduced several formal forest management plans, followed by an inventory of various forest zones. This policy was overtaken by political-economic interests, leading to minimal improvements in the condition and sustainability of the forests. In 1979, the newly independent Bangladesh drafted its first national forest policy. Unfortunately, the wordings and language of the policy were ambiguous and conflicting in nature which made it impossible to properly follow the recommendations; thus, indirectly encouraging actions that were eventually harmful to the health of the forests. The 1994 Forest Policy, however, placed a strong emphasis on the preservation and management of trees outside of designated forests through a participatory approach with residents. It encouraged the planting of trees by local groups and communities alongside roads, stream banks, and marginal lands, and the State supports all types of local forestry and forestry-related companies. The next year, the Forestry Sector Master Plan (1995–2015) was strategised, and much later, through the Forest Act of 2000 (Amendment), institutional restructuring (1998–2000), and social forestry rules (2004) were developed. Following these laws, the Environmental Courts Act, 2010 was enacted in 2010 to establish courts to deal with legal concerns and crimes related to forest issues. Under this law, only special Magistrates have the power to hear complaints, and the courts must conclude the case within 180 days. In addition, the Saw-mill (Licence) Rules, 2012 provides that no saw-mills should be built within 10 kilometres of a ‘protected forest’, as defined by the Forest Act of 1927. The saw-milling process of the trees includes removing the outer bark of the logs and cutting them into sections, which are then finally sawn into timber boards. This process impacts the environment by rising particulate matter from debarking and sawing, as well as kiln draws. The particulate environmental matter arises from log debarking, sawing into boards, wood residues and kiln drying as these processing stages create environmental hazards on the land. With regard to protecting forests, the Brick Manufactures and Kiln Establishment (Control) Act, 2013 prohibits brick fields to operate without the Deputy Commissioner’s approval. Although the law also prohibits cutting hills and the usage of forest wood for brick-making, fuel wood is still used to make bricks since it is the owners’ only available energy source for brick-making now. Both the National Forestry Policy 2016 and the Wildlife (Conservation and Security) Act, 2012 are against any form of industrial activity within 2 km of sanctuaries. These laws bring to light how far the operation of the Rampal Power plant project conflicts with the legal framework of Bangladesh. The Bangladesh Forestry Master Plan (2017–2036) is intended to enhance the Protected Area network by 30% and safeguard wildlife from poaching. Bangladesh currently comprises of 45 protected areas; most of which lack funds and well-trained staff, with high levels of conflicts between ministries and agencies over implementing laws and regulations. Lastly, with the latest amendment of the Forest Act in 2020, the Act legalised social forestry; a practice of planting trees in an area in association with the local population in order to influence their economic, ecological, and social growth. Given the importance, as well as shortage, of forest land, these provisions can be essential in human and forest sustenance. These provisions also allow those who plant the trees to support themselves until the trees’ fruits are reaped. In order to handle the wildlife and forest-related issues and offences, the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change is responsible. Under this Ministry, the Wildlife Crime Control Unit (WCCU) of the Department of Forest (DoF) has been mandated to identify environmentally critical zones, including the forest lands in the country and to draft regulations that improve these forest lands. And under the Environment Court Act 2010, every district has been mandated to have an environmental court, if required. Under this Act, the Magistrate Court will be provided with the power to dispose of complaints and finish proceedings within 180 days. This Act's distinctive feature shows that it can speed up environmental lawsuits and proceedings, resulting in the protection of Bangladesh's forests and other vital resources if properly applied. Besides its national measures, Bangladesh has signed or ratified significant international forest conventions such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and its Kyoto Protocol. Apart from these, the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (“Ramsar” Convention) and The Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage were also signed. Regardless, while on paper and official records the state seems to take a stand or draft laws in line with the international principles regarding the protection, conservation and safeguarding of the forests, in practice, the reality is quite the opposite. Forest’s Impact on Human Health: The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) estimated that between 2015 and 2020, almost 10 million hectares (2.5 million acres) of forest were lost globally each year. As a result of not conserving the forests, an adverse effect on human health has been evinced. Deforestation: Deforestation has been demonstrated to fragment forest ecosystems, increasing the concentration of infectious diseases and non-infectious illnesses like diabetes, typhoid, and lung disease. Following deforestation, as forest species, that cause allergies or irritants, move into new habitats or areas, human health problems will continue to rise. Climate Change: Climate change has a significant impact on human lives. Following deforestation, one such challenge of climate change is the transboundary movement/migration of pests, and thus, diseases. Similarly, the distribution of a species in a certain area may change, which could increase pollen production negatively affecting human health. Scientists fear that climate change could possibly charge the next pandemic, which have been made worse by human-induced landscape transformation. Removing the trees, the natural protector against climate change, invites frequent heat waves, rising the temperature of the earth, depleting the ozone layer, increasing the level of CO2 in the air, and increases global warning; which all in turn impacts the human body negatively. Deforestation also leads to loosening the soil, catalyses soil erosion, increases the salinity of the groundwater, and increases the sea levels. This groundwater, when consumed by human, raises the blood pressure due to the high salt matter. Hill Cutting: While the Brick Burning Control (Amendment) Act, 2013 prohibits cutting hills and using forest wood for brickmaking, hill cutting is a common practice in Bangladesh. The main reasons for hill cutting, as evinced through the survey conducted in the Chittagong City Corporation, include higher prices for newly developed plain land, population growth, the apartment and hotel industry, political influence and a lack of hill management policy, soil for brick fields, inadequate monitoring of hill land infrastructure development, and filling in of low areas. Locals from the Chittagong district claim that the hilly areas are rich in forest resources, including food in the form of a variety of fruits, and woody plants and trees with medicinal properties, which are lost as a result of the loss of dense forest areas via hill cutting. Wood burning and Brick kilns: In Bangladesh, unregulated brick kilns burns an enormous amount of fuel wood each year, which is equal to 2.4 crore standing trees and around 96,000 acres of forested land. The country has between 6,000 and 8,000 brick kilns, which burn primarily coal to generate about 1,200 crore bricks annually. Yet, because most of these kilns are either poorly managed or not inspected at all, many of the uncontrolled brick kilns burn firewood partially or exclusively. Most of the fuel used in these brick kilns is coal, which produces SO2 and particulate matter (PM) emissions, which result in poor air quality, and causes respiratory related diseases. Power Plant near Forest: One of the basic preconditions for a power plant project must be that it is outside a 25km radius from the outer periphery of an ecologically sensitive area in Bangladesh. Unfortunately, the Rampal Power Plant is situated a mere 14km north of the world’s largest mangrove forest Sundarbans which is a UNESCO world heritage site, and has already gone on commercial operation. It is estimated that around 4.75 million tons of coal would be burned annually at this power plant, and emit 14 million tons of CO2, linking to the increase in global warming. The power plant’s SO2, NOx, and PM emissions would have an impact on the air quality over a sizable region. All these pollutants are toxic when inhaled, causing short-term respiratory and other symptoms. Moreover, exposure to PM2.5 and NO2 has been related to serious long-term health effects, most notably an increase in the chance of developing chronic diseases. In the case of PM2.5, these impacts include stroke, lung cancer, heart diseases, and chronic respiratory diseases. Besides these pollutants, the plant could emit high levels of mercury, which when deposited, ‘could be sufficient to render fish unsafe to eat over an area of approximately 70 km2 around the power plant’. Mercury is a neurotoxin that damages children’s brains and nervous systems once consumed. While there exists no direct connection between the forest laws and their impact on human health, it can be inferred that implementing forest policies that centre on conserving forests will decidedly improve the health of both the forest and human, as doing the opposite adversely affects human health as well. While still archaic in nature, laws and policies are important tools that must be utilised effectively and properly to ensure the sustenance of forests and human health. Conclusion: From the existing legal overview, it can be inferred that the foundation of the colonial forest laws in Bangladesh, especially the Forest Act of 1927, was drafted primarily to make commercial use of the forest resources and generate revenue. Bangladesh’s degrading forests demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the current laws, institutions, and methods that collectively fail to safeguard the forest ecosystem. With time, more forest lands are being denuded, historical forest custodians are being alienated, and the forest administration is becoming draconian with its anti-forest and hence anti-people policies and practices. It is quite clear that the existing regulations are archaic, colonial, and unappreciative of modern administration. As a result, not only is the forest's health suffering, but so is human life. It is high time to make practical use of the existing legislation in order to protect forest lands. The state officials should also consider a step forward to collectively work with the communities and all relevant stakeholders to adopt and catalyse a pro-forest and pro-people practice regarding the forest ecosystem, which should extend above and beyond the legal conversation in ensuring the health of the forests, and thus, human.

The introduction of ADR was necessitated by the need to provide access to justice for all, through facilitating speedy disposal of disputes and inexpensive procedures. The success of ADR around the world has encouraged both the Courts and litigants to resort to different forms of ADR to resolve disputes. Though ADR saves time and money and helps the litigants to resolve a dispute in the manner best suited to their desire, such considerations cannot always be the driving criterion for justice. Interests of justice sometimes may require confrontational and lengthier process. Thus, ADR has not become a replacement but rather a necessary complement to the traditional justice system. Interests of justice must also account for the grievances and wishes of the litigants. Litigants come to the Courts with certain expectations, which aside from quick and inexpensive disposal of the case also include availing the remedies of their choice, a certain quality of adjudications, a fair trial etc. The recent evolving practices of mandatory ADR are said to be disruptive in the realization of such expectations. There have been growing sentiments that compulsory ADR requirements are a barrier towards access to courts. The England and Wales Court of Appeal in the Halsey v. Milton Keynes Gen. Hospital held that compulsory mediation violated Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which provides for the right to a fair and public trial. Such a strict interpretation of the right to a fair trial is indeed faulty. The failure of a State to allow access to a Court or Tribunal does amount to a violation of human rights unless such limitations are based on domestic legislation, are necessary to pursue a legitimate aim such as the proper administration of justice, [1] and doesn’t impair the essence of the right.[2] Thus, a state providing for mandatory ADR to resolve a dispute is not in violation of human rights. Governments have the authority to impose conditions on bringing cases before the Court for the greater interests of justice, which may include providing for inexpensive and speedy pre-trial ADR procedures which don’t prejudice any rights of the parties. Some disputes are inherently of such nature that the inordinate length and excessive cost of the legal procedure are out of proportion to the financial value of the case, thus necessitating ADR. Therefore, mandatory ADR provisions do not restrict the access to courts, rather works as a qualifying stage, for the greater interests of justice. On the other hand, some courts, being ‘over-enthusiastic’ about the ADR mechanisms, have tried to force it upon the litigants. For example, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 makes it mandatory for the Courts to refer the dispute to mediation after the issues are framed for settlement of disputes. This view is in resonance with the attitude of different courts in various jurisdictions surrounding the ADR. The U.S. Court of Appeals, in re Atlantic Pipe Corp., held that a federal trial Court has the inherent authority to order mandatory mediation if it deems such as appropriate. Similarly, the England and Wales Court of Appeal in Pauline Lomax vs. Stuart Lomax, held that a judge-led early neutral evaluation under the Civil Procedure Rules didn’t require the consent of the parties. The Court was of the opinion that due to ehethe the absenthe absence of an express requirement for consent in the rules, the concerns of cost efficiency and speedy disposal are to be prioritized. In Dunnett vs. Railtrack Plc, the Court went as far as to hold that a winning party will lose its right to costs against the losing party due to its reluctance to participate in pre-trial ADR. While courts can force parties into mandatory ADR, if such discretion is conferred to them by the law, such an approach may not always be justified. One of the key factors behind favouring ADR mechanisms over the traditional justice system is that such process allows the litigants, to reach an outcome, which is favourable to both the sides. But, if the party themselves are reluctant to participate in such process, forcing them into such, can hardly spawn an outcome that is preferable to both sides. Besides, party autonomy and empowerment, which are also considered as some of the primary benefits of ADR, [3] are diminished if the parties are forced into the process. The Court, during its deliberation in the Milton Keynes Gen. Hospital case, stated that compelling parties to enter into a mandatory mediation process, that they objected, may result in added costs, additional time and may damage the perceived effectiveness of the ADR process. Thus, forcing ADR to reluctant parties may undo all the positives that are usually achieved from ADR. An adjudicatory process may leave both parties unhappy at its conclusion, but in ADR, where the parties are unwilling, the beginning of the process itself is unsatisfactory, thus moving towards a dissatisfactory end. Traditional Courts often leave the parties unsatisfied, because of the rigid remedies provided by such. But if the parties themselves want such remedies, then forcing them to find alternative remedies can hardly bring any benefit. Therefore, though it is an exaggeration to identify mandatory ADR as a human rights violation, indiscriminate use of such may undermine justice and the process itself. Both governments and courts shouldn’t consider ADR as a ‘silver bullet’ for all cases. Such one size fits all approach may prove to be an impediment towards ensuring justice. Instead of forcing the parties to resort to ADR, the judges should rather explore the reasons for parties’ resistance towards ADR. [1] UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), General comment no. 32, Article 14, Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to fair trial, CCPR/C/GC/32, 23 August 2007, para 18. [2] See for e.g. Ashingdane v United Kingdom, Judgment (Merits), Case No 14/1983/70/106, App No 8225/78 (A/93); Benthem v Netherlands, Merits and just satisfaction, App No 8848/80, A/97. ; [3] See Robert A. Baruch Bush, 'Efficiency and Protection, or Empowerment and Recognition? The Mediator's Role and Ethical Standards in Mediation' [1989] 41 University of Florida Law Review 253.

Experiencing an unsafe, unsecured, and rowdy public space has become a quotidian life for people living in Dhaka City. Daily, we encounter acts interfering with the public's comfort, health or safety in the way of Noise, Vibration, Heat, Smoke, Smell, Sewer Obstructions etc., which are nothing but offences of public nuisance. Due to the lack of rule of law and awareness among the citizens about the law of public nuisance, we not only commit the offence of public nuisance but also choose to remain inactive when we come across such offences on regular basis. In pursuit of public safety, health and convenience, we need to be aware of public nuisance crimes that occur every day in Dhaka city. What is Public Nuisance? When a person does any act or omits to discharge any legal duties which – endanger the life, health, safety, property, and morals of the public or the comfort of the public, or obstruct the public in exercising or enjoying the rights common to all, is responsible for public nuisance whether such person is an ordinary citizen or a government official under section 268 of the Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The purpose of addressing public nuisance is to secure the public's life, health, property, morals, or comfort and to exercise or enjoy the rights common to the public without any obstruction. Public Nuisance – The Most Committed Crime in Dhaka City In Dhaka City, it is impossible to find a day without having news either on the Adulteration of Food, Drink, Drugs, or Air Pollution, Noise Pollution, Rash Driving, and Obstruction in Public Ways, which are offences of Public Nuisances. Similarly, we experience all these offences regularly. Why? Because either this way or another, we all, are committing a public nuisance. Either we are the dishonest traders, importers and manufacturers, cultivators and processing agencies responsible for the adulteration of food, drink, and drugs, or we are the unskilled, drunken, and reckless drivers who do not obey the traffic law and regulations responsible for rash driving, or the creator of obstruction in a public way by putting dirt, gravel, soil, rubbish, junk vehicle, etc. to obstruct traffic, drainage, pedestrians or otherwise safe and open access to such right-of-way. If not these, we are responsible for activities like spitting, smoking in public areas, urinating on footpaths, parking a car in non-parking public areas, etc. Therefore, either one way or another, each one of us comes under the fold of public nuisance offences. Offences of Public Nuisance Affecting Public Health, Safety, and Convenience: To give an overview of how activities of ​Public Nuisance are​ damaging public health, safety, and convenience; the following illustrates​ ​crimes mentioned in Chapter 14 of the Code and are discussed briefly. Adulteration of Food and Drink: On daily basis, some people sell basic food items like rice, pulses, spices, fish, oil, vegetables and sweetmeats which contain toxic chemicals and other harmful additives. According to a survey, the markets in Dhaka and other parts of the country now sell more than 75% of all foods that are adulterated. In addition, more than 80% of fruits, 60% of vegetables, 70% of rice, and 60% of both branded and open edible oil are dangerously adulterated now. Food adulteration has been marked as one of the main reasons for the rise of cancer, and damaging vital human organs like the liver, kidney, and heart as per the research conducted by the Ministry of Health. It is also affecting children's mental and physical growth. Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) disclosed that more than 4.5 million people in the country are at health risk from consuming adulterated and contaminated food every year, and due to this, 16% of the population are kidney patients, according to the Health Directorate of Bangladesh. Food adulteration is an offence of public nuisance as per Sections 272 and 273 of the Code, which is damaging the fate of present and future generations. Dishonest traders, importers and manufacturers, cultivators and processing agencies are involved in these unethical practices. Adulteration of Drug: Whoever adulterates (lessens the efficacy or changes the operation of such drug or medical preparation, or makes it harmful) any drug or medical preparation for the purpose of selling or knowing it to be likely that it will be sold or used for, any medicinal purpose and whoever knowingly sells, or offers or exposes for sale, or issues from a dispensary for medicinal purposes is guilty of public nuisance under Sections 274 and 275 of the Code. Pharmaceutical drug adulteration is widespread in Bangladesh, which is not only injurious to health but also pushes millions of people to death slowly. It compromises the treatment of chronic and infectious diseases, causing disease progression, drug resistance, and death [1]. Making Atmosphere Noxious to Health: Whoever willingly impairs the atmosphere of any place to make it harmful to the health of people who live there or carry on business in the neighbourhood or pass along the public way is guilty of public nuisance under Section 278 of the Code. The following activities that cause to debase the atmosphere of any public places are the offences of public nuisance. Air Pollution Due to Brick kilns, Surface Dust and Sand, Vehicle Emission - 85% of Dhaka’s air pollution is caused by brick kilns, surface dust and sand, and vehicle emissions. Exposure to high levels of air pollution is causing breathing difficulties, cough, lower respiratory tract infections, depression, and other health conditions as per the report of the World Bank. The air quality of Dhaka City is hazardous according to the Air Quality Index (AQI). In Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal, the accused carried on a trade that involved crushing bricks through a brick crusher machinery, which resulted in the emission of a large quantity of dust in the surrounding areas. The victim, a medical practitioner, lived neighbouring the accused’s premises. The victim complained that the dust emitted as a result of the accused’s trade was detrimental to his and his patient’s health. In this case, since numerous people were involved, the accused’s act constituted a public nuisance and the court issued an injunction order against the defendant and granted special damages to the victim. Smoking in Public Place - Air pollution from cigarettes is 10 times the emissions from diesel car exhaust. Tobacco smoke produces fine particulate matter, which is the most dangerous element of air pollution for health. “Cigarette filters pollute our oceans, rivers, city sidewalks, parks, soil and beaches every year,” said Dr Ruediger Krech, Director of Health Promotion at WHO. Smoking in “public places and public transport” is a regular thing in Dhaka City despite the fact that smoking in public places and public transport is a punishable offence under the Smoking and Tobacco Products Usage (Control) Act 2005. In K Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala (1999), the Court declared that smoking in any form in public is a public nuisance. Smoking is harmful to the public at large and is, thereby, fulfilling the requisites of public nuisance. Honking Beyond Prescribed Limit – It is definitive for the residents of Dhaka city to experience horns in their everyday lives. Horn causes deafness, anxiety, and high blood pressure. Honking horns beyond the prescribed limit causing injury, and disturbance to the public, is a punishable offence under section 290 of the Code. In Ramlal v. Mustafabad Oil and Oil Ginning Factory, the Court observed that once it is determined that the noise exceeds the threshold required to be responsible for public nuisance, it is not a valid defence to argue that the noise originated from lawful activity. Dhaka is the most noise pollution city in the world as per the United Nations Environment Programme. Rash driving or riding on a public way: According to the Bangladesh Road Safety Foundation’s (RSF) annual report, at least 6,284 people died, and 7,468 others were injured in road accidents between January and December 2021, compared to 5,431 people dead and 7,379 injured in road collisions in 2020. Reasons for the increase in traffic accidents include: Reckless driving, excessive speed, forced overtaking, violation of traffic rules, illegal and dangerous competition, long hours of non-stop driving, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, driver incompetence, dangerous roads, careless bike riding, ineffective traffic control system [2]. Rash driving or riding on a public way creates criminal damage to roads, other vehicles and surrounding property, and injury and death to the public, which is an offence of public nuisance according to Section 279 of the Code. In the State By J.C. Nagar P.S. v Santanam, 1997, the accused, a military personnel, drove a military truck in a zigzag manner and struck and killed a moped driver then hit an auto-rickshaw​ ​causing damage to it. The autorickshaw driver chased the truck in another auto-rickshaw and saw him hitting a compound wall and a grille. The High Court of Karnataka held that the truck driver was guilty of public nuisance. Danger or obstruction in public way: An analysis of five years (2011-2015) of crash data showed that unpredictable pedestrian crossings, violations of traffic signs, exceeding speed limits, fast traffic at intersections, overtaking on curves, etc., reflect highway vulnerabilities that are the causes of danger, obstruction or, injury in any public way or line of navigation, which is an offence of public nuisance as per Section 283 of the Code. Statistics showed that Bangladesh has the highest road fatality rate, with over 50 fatalities per 10,000 road vehicles. Conclusion: Knowingly or unknowingly, we all are guilty of public nuisance. Ignorance of the law is not a valid ground for the defence of a case in our legal system. Neither the concerned authority nor the people can give any dispensation for not obeying the law. Tolerance is an important concept that helps people to live together peacefully, however, our tolerant attitude towards public nuisance is making our life miserable as well as harmfully affecting our life, health, and property as a whole. To enjoy a clean, healthy and disturb-free public life and environment, we must act as responsible citizens and do our part in keeping the environment clean and peaceful. [1] Ak Mohiuddin. The Mysterious Domination of Food Contaminants and Adulterants in Bangladesh. Int J Environ Sci Nat Res. 2019; 16(3): 555941. [2] SABIHA AKTER SEEMA, 'Road Accident: A Major Concern of Bangladesh' Centre for Governance Study, 18 May 2022.