The requirement for a personal hearing before the cancellation of registration under the FCRA is essential when the consequences are severe, as outlined in Section 14(2) of the Act.

ORDER

M. Nagaprasanna, J.

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 05-03-2021 by which the 2nd respondent suspends its registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 ('the Act' for short) and sought a consequential relief against the orders passed aftermath of the aforesaid order and has further sought a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider the application submitted by the petitioner seeking renewal of licence.

2. Heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Madhukar Deshpande, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri B.N. Jagadeesh, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 3 and 4.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

One Ullas Karanth said to be the grandson of Dr. K. Shivarama Karanth, is the Chief Functionary for Centre for Wild Life Studies. The petitioner registers a trust deed under the name and style of Centre for Wildlife Studies with the object of promoting and carrying on activities relating to scientific study and conservation of natural habitats of wildlife, promoting projects which involve rehabilitation of endangered animals, ecosystem and plants. The members of the scientists in the Trust are internationally recognized and have been conferred several awards and innumerable encomiums. With the aforesaid objects, on 23-01-1990 the Trust registers itself under the Act. The registration has been renewed from time to time. On 05-03-2021, the petitioner makes an application for change of bank account in which funds of the trust were being operated, which also came to be permitted. After the said act, the petitioner receives funds from foreign contributors as well as from Indian contributors. The funds received are said to be utilized only for social and educational purposes in strict consonance with the norms under the Act. 20% of the funds of foreign contributions are utilized to meet the expenses of the Trust. It is the averment in the petition that separate accounts have been maintained for the receipt utilization etc. It would suffice if the story is forwarded to 05-03-2021 when the respondent/Union of India issues an order of suspension of registration of the petitioner for a period of six months. A communication is made to the petitioner in the form of a questionnaire. The claim of the petitioner is that, the communication never reached the petitioner. The petitioner on 11-04-2021, against the order of suspension, sends a reply setting out all the details including maintenance of accounts or otherwise. It is then on 03-12-2021, a show cause notice comes to be issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why registration of the petitioner should not be cancelled in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act. The petitioner contends that a detailed reply was sent by the petitioner to the show cause notice refuting each one of the allegations. On 04-09-2023 an order comes to be passed cancelling the registration. The contention of the petitioner is that objections/reply of the petitioner running to over 25 pages and considering nothing, a cryptic order is passed that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Act. It is these actions that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla representing the petitioner would vehemently contend that the order which cancels registration of the petitioner does not bear any reason and prior to cancellation of the certificate of registration of the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have been afforded personal hearing in terms of Section 14(2) of the Act. He would submit that these factors would cut at the root of the matter and would restrict his submissions to the aforesaid grounds.

5. The learned counsel Sri Madhukar Deshpande representing the respondents/Union of India would vehemently contend that there is no war