Back
2020 Supreme(Ker) 487
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
India Pentecostal Church of God, Rep. by its General President – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi – Respondent
M.F.A. No. 13 of 2020
Decided On : 25-06-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sri. Joseph Markose, Sri. Joseph P. Alex, Sri. Manu Sankar P.
For the Respondents: Sri. P. Vijayakumar, Sri. K.R. Rajkumar.
IMPORTANT POINTS
The entities, who have not filed their Annual Return but whose registration have already been cancelled, were offered a one time exemption in public interest to avoid the rigor of Section 14(3) of the FCRA and to apply for re-registration without any penalty being imposed.
Headnote:
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act - Section 14(3) -One time exemption in public interest --To avoid the rigor of Section 14(3) of the FCRA -Apply for re-registration without any penalty being imposed-Opportunity of applying for a re-registration without having to pay penalty-They accede to the jurisdiction of the competent respondent and apply for either revival of their earlier registration or for re-registration, as the law may permit, without payment of the penalty which, then, can be considered by the competent Authority
Statement of facts:
This statutory appeal under the provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act has been preferred by the India Pentecostal Church of God and its Pastor, who is also its General President, impugning the order dated 18.10.2019 issued by the third respondent-Deputy Director General, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to the extent to which it relates to them.
Finding of the court:
It will be better for the appellants that they accede to the jurisdiction of the competent respondent and apply for either revival of their earlier registration or for re-registration, as the law may permit, without payment of the penalty which, then, can be considered by the competent Authority, after affording them an opportunity of being heard. Obviously, this benefit can be given to them only if they first deposit the entire amounts mulcted against them as penalty-Directions issued- Directions cannot apply as a precedent to any other person/entity, who have not filed an appeal yet, if they are to claim analogous factual circumstances.
Result: Appeal disposed of
JUDGMENT :
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
1. This statutory appeal under the provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (for short ‘the FCRA’) has been preferred by the India Pentecostal Church of God and its Pastor, who is also its General President, impugning the order dated 18.10.2019 issued by the third respondent-Deputy Director General, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to the extent to which it relates to them.
2. The appellants say that as per this order, their registration under the FCRA has been cancelled by the third respondent, invoking the provisions of Section 14 of it and they say that the only reason stated therein for taking this drastic action is that they had not uploaded their Annual Returns as required by the said Statute within the time sanctioned. They point out that, going by the provisions of law, they had to upload the Annual Returns for the year 2017-18 on or before 31.12.2018 but that this was extended through a public notice dated 29.12.2018, a copy of which has been placed on record as Ext.R3(a), till 31.03.2019. They allege that on account of certain unavoidable circumstances, including defects in their PAN Account, they were able to upload their Annual Returns only on 03.04.2019 but that when they tried to do so, they saw that a penalty of Rs. 43,41,711/- had been imposed against them.
3. The appellants say that, therefore, they preferred Annexure-6 request, dated 23.05.2019, to the respondents seeking that they be permitted to file the Annual Return in Form No. FC4 without payment of penalty explaining the reason for the three day's delay. They submit that, however, this request was not acceded to but that in the meanwhile, they received Annexure-2 communication, dated 22.05.2019, asking them to upload their Annual Returns within 15 days from the date of the said notice. They further say that the facts being so, the impugned order was issued on 18.10.2019 cancelling their registration and that they are, therefore, constrained to assail the said order as being illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional.
4. I have heard Sri. Joseph Markose, learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri. Jacob P. Alex, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. P. Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, instructed by Sri. K.R. Rajkumar, learned Central Government Counsel on behalf of the respondents.
5. Even though I have heard the learned senior counsel Sri. Joseph Markose and the learned Assistant Solicitor General Sri. P. Vijayakumar in extenso, it has become evident that it may not be necessary for this Court to enter into a conclusive or affirmative evaluation of their dialectical contentions, since the parties appear to have entered into a via-media solution to obtain a practical resolution of the disputes. In furtherance of this, the appellants have now made a suggestion, which I think this Court will be in a position to accede to and which I will record presently.
6. As I have said above, the specific allegation of the appellants is that the impugned order could not have been issued without conducting an enquiry by the competent respondent under Section 14(2) of the FCRA. They allege that they have made an attempt to upload their Annual Returns on 03.04.2019, which was a mere three days after the deadline statutorily fixed but that this was not permitted for the reason that they were liable to pay penalty of a huge amount of Rs. 43,41,711/-. They say that, nevertheless, even assuming that they had not uploaded their Annual Returns in time, the impugned order could not have been issued without following the mandate of Section 14(2) of the FCRA, which specifically stipulates that they be given a prior notice and that their explanation sought, leading to an enquiry before any such adverse order is issued against them.
7. Even when the afore submissions and contentions of the appellants are recorded, the fact remains that when the hearing of this case proceeded, it was brought to my notice
