Bangladesh Passport Order, 1973
Sections 6(1)(2)-Almost all the countries in the world, now a day's use Machine Readable Passport. In fact, a passport is a very important document to a citizen of the country. It is not only a travel document, it also gives identity of a person relating to his nationality. Historically, legal authority to issue passports is founded on the exercise of each nation's executive discretion (or Crown prerogative). The petitioner had a passport and during this time he has not earned any disqualification as per section 6(1)(2) of the Order to get a new passport. The petitioner being a lawful citizen of Bangladesh is entitled to a Machine Readable Passport and with- holding the same is clear violation of Articles 31 and 36 of the Constitution. Tariqul Islam vs Bangladesh, 68 DLR 150
Article 7, 10.
But in the cases where the domestic laws are clear and inconsistent with the international obligations of the state concerned, the national courts will be obliged to respect the national laws, but shall draw the attention of the law-makers to such inconsistencies. Mr Hussain Muhammad Ershed vs Bangladesh (Latifur Rahman C J)(Civil)2ADC 371
Bangladesh Passport Order, 1973
Article 10- 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, [8 LM (AD) 23]
