Multiple members of same family cannot get fertiliser dealerships: Apex court
The provision was revised to prevent family monopolies in fertiliser dealerships and ensure transparency, accountability and proper distribution to farmers.
The Appellate Division's Chamber Court has stayed a High Court order that had maintained the status quo on the government policy barring multiple members of the same family from obtaining fertiliser dealerships.
The order means multiple members of the same family can no longer obtain fertiliser dealerships under the policy, Attorney General Barrister Ruhul Quddus Kazal told reporters.
Chamber Judge Justice Rezaul Haque passed the order today (7 October) after hearing a state petition seeking a stay on the High Court order.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Attorney General Ruhul Quddus and Deputy Attorney General Mahbuba Jui represented the state, while Advocate Ikramul Haque Tutul appeared for the writ petitioners.
Earlier, five individuals filed two writ petitions challenging the provision that prevents multiple members of the same family from obtaining fertiliser dealerships.
After hearing the petitions, a High Court bench issued a status quo order on the implementation of the provision. The state then moved the Appellate Division seeking a stay.
Ruhul said the 2009 policy on fertiliser dealers and distribution did not bar multiple members of the same family from holding dealerships.
"As a result, dealerships were created in the names of husbands, wives, sons, daughters and daughters-in-law of the same family, creating a family monopoly," he said.
The policy was revised in 2025 to stop this practice to ensure that the state and farmers could not be held hostage by such family monopolies, he said.
The provision was amended again in August this year.
Ruhul said five people from families that had long been involved in the fertiliser dealership business filed the writ petitions yesterday, seeking protection for their existing dealerships.
They obtained the High Court's status quo order, which prevented them from being removed even though the process of appointing dealers under the 2026 policy was underway, he said.
The state argued before the High Court that the policy had not yet been implemented, as the dealer appointment process was still ongoing and distribution by the new dealers had not begun.
After the High Court issued the interim order, the Attorney General's Office filed an appeal with the Appellate Division.
"After hearing both sides, the Chamber Court stayed the High Court's status quo order," Ruhul said.
He said the provision was introduced to ensure transparency and accountability, prevent corruption and ensure that fertiliser reaches farmers properly without them facing difficulties in obtaining it.
