There might be a case where power to impound a passport might be frustrated if a hearing could be given to the holder of a passport before impounding the passport and such plea might be taken for excluding the principle of audi alterem partem. The order of impounding of the passport of the appellant in this case obviously has been passed on the basis of the order of the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and nothing could be shown to us to indicate that there was any chance to frustrate impounding of the passport by the appellant. The appellant having not been supplied with the copy of the order recording reasons therefore restricting the appellant from leaving the country certainly is violative of Article 7(4) of the Bangladesh Passport Order as the appellant had no opportunity to take a decision to avail of the alternative remedy by way of appeal as provided in Article 10 of the Passport Order, 1973. Withholding the order of the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs also is indicative of malafide. (Per A.M. Mahmudur Rahman, J.)
Hussain Muhammad Ershad Vs Bangladesh and others, 21 BLD (AD) 69.

Article 7(2)—Per AM Mahmudur Rahman J :
The power conferred under Article 7(2) of the Passport Order to impound a passport is violative of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 36 of the Constitution and rules of natural justice is applicable in such a case inasmuch as it seriously interferes with the constitutional right of the holder of a passport to go abroad in restricting him to leave and re-enter Bangladesh. HM Ershad vs Bangladesh and ors 7 BLC (AD) 67.

The order of impounding of the passport of the appellant in this case obviously has been passed on the basis of the order of the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and nothing could be shown to us to indicate that there was any chance to frustrate impounding of the passport by the appellant. The appellant having not been supplied with the copy of the order recording reasons therefore restricting the appellant from leaving the country is violative of Article 7(4) of the Bangladesh Passport Order and as such the appellant had no opportunity to take a decision to avail of the alternative remedy by way of appeal as provided in Article 10 of the Passport Order, 1973. For such violation the order of impounding a passport cannot be held to be lawfully made. Withholding the order of the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs also is indicative of malafide. Therefore, there is no reason to defeat the writ petition on the ground of doctrine of exhaustion. HM Ershad vs Bangladesh and ors 7 BLC (AD) 67.

Bangladesh Passport Order, 1973
Article 10 read with
Constitution of Bangladesh
Article 102(1)
Return the passport to enable the appellant to get treatment in abroad– Right to move the High Court Division in accordance with clause (1) of Article 102 for the enforcement of fundamental right conferred by this Part is also a fundamental right under Article 44 of the Constitution. Where a person moves the High Court Division under article 101(1) of the Constitution for enforcement of his fundamental right the writ petitioner is not required to avail of the alternative remedy before any other forum, in the present case before the appellate authority as contemplated under Article 10 of the Bangladesh Passport Order. It may be pointed out that proviso to Article 10 does not provide for any appeal against any order made by the Government and the order of the Secretary is the order of the Government and in that case no appeal shall lie as contemplated in proviso to Article 10 of the Order and the writ petition is quite competent . We, therefore, are of the opinion that the High Court Division was wrong to observe: "We agree with the learned Additional Attorney-general that the reason for impounding the petitioner's passport fits with the provisions of the Passport Order as quoted above". The aforequoted observation of the High Court Division seems to us is totally unfounded in law and misconceived.
We allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court Division. The respondents are hereby directed to return the passport to the appellant immediately. …Hussain Muhammad Ershed =VS= Bangladesh, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 23] ....View Full Judgment

Right to move the High Court Division in accordance with clause (1) of Article 102 for the enforcement of fundamental right conferred by this part is also a fundamental right under Article 44 of the Constitution. Where a person moves the High Court Division under Article 102(1) of the Constitution for enforcement of his fundamental right the writ petitioner is not required to avail of the alternative remedy before any other forum, in the present case before the appellate authority as contemplated under Article 10 of the Bangladesh Passport Order. It may be pointed out that proviso to Article 10 does not provide for any appeal against any order made by the Government and the order of the Secretary is the order of the Government and in that case no appeal shall lie as contemplated in proviso to Article 10 of the Order and the writ petition is quite competent. HM Ershad vs Bangladesh and ors 7 BLC (AD) 67.

What is Passport?
Possession of a passport does not necessarily imply that he Is a citizen of that country but it may only mean that he Is a national of that country. Under the Bangladesh Passport Order, 1973, passport is primarily a travel document of a citizen of Bangladesh and other persons for the purpose of departure from Bangladesh. In the Passport of Bangladesh, no where it is written as citizen of Bangladesh, but as national of Bangladesh. [Paras-40, 129 & 165] Bangladesh Vs. Prof. Golam Azam & Ors 3 BLT (AD)

Nansen Passport
It means a stateless person holding a passport. Bangladesh Vs. Prof Golam Azam & Ors 3 BLT (AD)-3