An appeal under Section 31(2) of the FCRA, 2010 is not maintainable for the rejection of a renewal application under Section 16; the proper remedy lies in filing a revision under Section 32.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 31/31(2) of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'FCRA, 2010') read with Order XLI of CPC for setting aside the order dated 30.03.2024, whereby the application made by the appellant for renewal of licence has been refused by the respondent herein.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) appearing for the respondent.

3. The case of the appellant is that the appellant is said to be a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, who has been confirmed by the Central Government under Section 12 of FCRA, 2010. The appellant received foreign contribution for an object to provide health, education, economic development, housing and construction activities to some Adivasis residing in the border areas of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala State. The appellant also filed an application under Section 16 of FCRA, 2010 for renewal of certificate, which came to be rejected by the respondent authority vide e-mail order dated 30.03.2024. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.

4. The learned DSGI appearing for the respondent raised an objection regarding maintainability of the appeal filed under Section 31(2) of the FCRA, 2010. It is contended by the DSGI that there is a revision provision provided under Section 32 of the FCRA, 2010. Such being the case, the appeal is not maintainable. The learned DSGI has also filed a counter affidavit on the maintainability.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the application was filed for renewal of licence under Section 16 of the FCRA, 2010. It is contended that as per Section 31(2) of the FCRA, 2010, it is an appealable order. Any order passed by the Authority is deemed to be a decree, which is available under Order XLI of First Schedule of CPC.

Therefore, the appeal is maintainable. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the similar order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of TRIPURA FOUNDATION (INDIA) Vs.THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1080/2024 and C.M.P. Nos.10009 and 10010/2024 dated 24.07.2024. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Madras High Court on considering the similar issue, has held that the appeal is maintainable under Section 31(2) of the FCRA, 2010, and therefore, the appeal is maintainable. The learned counsel, on merits, has contended that the order passed by the Authority rejecting the renewal application was based upon Section 12 of the FCRA, 2010, and therefore, the appeal is maintainable. There is no speaking order or any reason is assigned for rejection of the application for renewal of licence of the appellant. Therefore, prayed setting aside the impugned order.

6. Per contra, the learned DSGI has seriously objected the appeal contending that the appeal is not maintainable. Further, there is reason assigned for rejection of the application as the application was made from Karnataka State, but most of the business is done at the State of Tamil Nadu. Such being the case, the functioning of the appellant-Society itself is suspicion. It is further submitted that the amount was received from the Foreign Country, but it was being diverted for other desirable purpose. Therefore, the application came to be rejected. The order cannot be appealable and a revision has to be filed. In support of his contentions, the learned DSGI has relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of DR. R.N. GUPTA TECHNICAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs.UNION OF INDIA decided on 01.05.2024 in W.P. (C)No.5986/2024.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.

8. The points that arise for consideration in this appealare:

(i) Whether rejection of the original application under Section 16 of