Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Bangladesh Passport Order, 1973 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Article 7(4) |
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) |
Article 7(2)—Per AM Mahmudur Rahman J :
|
HM Ershad vs Bangladesh and ors. | 7 BLC (AD) 67 |
Articles 7(4) and 10 |
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. |
HM Ershad vs Bangladesh and ors. | 7 BLC (AD) 67 |
Article 10 |
Bangladesh Passport Order, 1973
|
Hussain Muhammad Ershed =VS= Bangladesh | 8 LM (AD) 23 |
Article 10 |
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. |
HM Ershad vs Bangladesh and ors. | 7 BLC (AD) 67 |
What is Passport? |
What is Passport?
|
Bangladesh Vs. Prof. Golam Azam & Ors. | 3 BLT (AD) |
Nansen Passport |
Nansen Passport
|
Bangladesh Vs. Prof Golam Azam & Ors. | 3 BLT (AD) 3 |