Back
K. NATARAJAN
Action For Community Organisation, Rehabilitation And Development – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
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
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.
An appeal under Section 31(2) of the FCRA, 2010 is maintainable against the rejection of a renewal application, emphasizing the necessity for clear reasoning in rejection orders.
The authority can refuse renewal of FCRA registration based on safety concerns without violating natural justice, as supported by inquiry findings.
Point of law : By the time suspension order was passed, the Central Government had neither issued any notice of hearing / Show Cause notice in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 14 nor had it initia....
Point of law: By the time suspension order was passed, the Central Government had neither issued any notice of hearing/Show Cause notice in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 14 nor had it initiated....
The court upheld the suspension of the FCRA registration under Section 13, ruling that no prior inquiry or hearing is required, affirming the necessity of statutory compliance over natural justice.
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.
Compounding a violation under the FCRA Act rectifies the applicant's status, and vague basis for rejection violates principles of natural justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
