Back
N. ANAND VENKATESH
Tripura Foundation (India) represented by its Authorised Representative and Chief Functionary B. Yadeesh – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division (FCRA Wing), New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The present appeal has been filed under Section 31(2) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 against the order passed by the respondent in Renewal Application No.0300091252021 dated 17.09.2021, refusing to grant renewal of permanent registration to the appellant.
2. The case of the appellant is that the appellant foundation was established in the year 1999 and it is a trust registered under Section 12-A of the Income Tax Act. The appellant was granted prior permission on 03.03.2000 under Section 6(1A) of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976 and permanent registration was granted on 16.07.2003 under Section 6(1)(a) of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976. The permanent registration was granted for the purpose of education and social activities. It was renewed from time to time and the last renewal was valid from 01.11.2016 for a period of five years.
3. The further case of the appellant is that the appellant applied for renewal of its registration. The appellant received a e-mail dated 31.03.2024 from the competent authority informing the appellant that the renewal application has been refused under Section 16(2) r/w Sections 12(4)(a)(vii) and 1
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.
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.
Compounding a violation under the FCRA Act rectifies the applicant's status, and vague basis for rejection violates principles of natural justice.
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 authority can refuse renewal of FCRA registration based on safety concerns without violating natural justice, as supported by inquiry findings.
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.
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
